Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED OFFICE ACTION
This action is in response to papers filed on 11/18/2025.
Claims 1-3 have been amended.
Claims 4-6 have been cancelled.
Claims 7-11 have been added.
Claims 1-3 and 7-11 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/18/2025 has been entered.
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 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claims are directed to a process (method as introduced in Claim 1), and/or system (Claim 2), and/or computer program product (Claim 3), thus Claims 1-3 and 7-11 fall within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claimed invention recites an abstract idea according to MPEP §2106.04. The independent claims which recite the following claim limitations as an abstract idea, are underlined below.
Claims 1-3 recite (as represented by the language of Claim 1):
providing a plurality of computing devices for communicating with a plurality of users of the learning management system, the learning management system including a plurality of users enrolled in a plurality of courses;
providing at least one server in communication with the plurality of computing devices, the at least one server having at least one data storage device coupled thereto;
determining, automatically by the at least one server, a high-level structure learning outcome and, based on the high-level learning outcome, a plurality of lower-level structure learning outcomes corresponding to the high-level learning outcome, wherein the lower-level learning outcomes are each assigned a weight in relation to the high-level learning outcome;
determining, by the at least one server, a plurality of learning activities for each of the plurality of lower-level learning outcomes, wherein the plurality of learning activities is selected based on an effectiveness value for each of the plurality of learning activities in relation to the associated lower-level learning outcome;
executing each learning activity and obtain a grade for each of the plurality of activities for each of the lower-level learning outcomes;
verifying that the high-level learning outcome has been met by the plurality of learning activities for each of the lower-level learning outcomes;
generating a rubric for each of the lower-level learning outcomes and associating the rubric with the plurality of activities for that lower-level learning outcome when obtaining the grade for each of the plurality of activities; and
determining an outcome for the high-level learning outcome based on the grade for each of the plurality of learning activities and the weight assigned to the associated lower-level learning outcome.
The underlined claim limitations as emphasized above, as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers the performance of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) in the form of determining relationships between learning activities and outcomes in a learning structure hierarchy, executing activities, and determining grades and outcomes based on those relationships in the hierarchy. Other than reciting a computer implementation, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from encompassing the performance of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people which represents the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. But for the recitation of generic implementation of computer system components, the claimed invention merely recites a process for determining activities based on desired outcomes and grading/scoring those activities to determine if the outcomes have been met. For example, a user could, without the use of a computer, determine a desired high-level outcome, identify lower-level outcomes and weight them based on their relationship to the high-level outcome (such as importance to the outcome), select the activities deemed most effective to those outcomes (such as based on historic outcome data), then use grades from those activities and weights to determine if the desired high-level outcomes have been met.
Additionally, the underlined claim limitations as emphasized above, as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers the performance of concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), in the form of determining relationships between learning activities and outcomes in a learning structure hierarchy, executing activities, and determining grades and outcomes based on those relationships in the hierarchy. Other than reciting a computer implementation, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from encompassing the concepts performed in the human mind which represents the abstract idea of certain mental processes. But for the recitation of generic implementation of computer system components, the claimed invention merely recites a process for determining activities based on desired outcomes and grading/scoring those activities to determine if the outcomes have been met. For example, a user could, without the use of a computer, determine a desired high-level outcome, identify lower-level outcomes and weight them based on their relationship to the high-level outcome (such as importance to the outcome), select the activities deemed most effective to those outcomes (such as based on historic outcome data), then use grades from those activities and weights to determine if the desired high-level outcomes have been met.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite additional elements such as:
learning management system;
a plurality of computing devices [comprising one or more processors and one or more memories configured to provide the one or more processors with instructions] for communicating with a plurality of users of the learning management system;
at least one server in communication with the plurality of computing devices, the at least one server having at least one data storage device coupled thereto;
non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising computer program product and computer instructions;
In particular, the additional elements cited above beyond the abstract idea are recited at a high-level of generality and simply equivalent to a generic recitation and basic functionality that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer technology components.
Accordingly, since the specification describes the additional elements in general terms, without describing the particulars, the additional elements may be broadly but reasonably construed as generic computing components being used to perform the judicial exception (see specification at [0018]; [0022], describes generic, general-purpose computing devices). These claimed additional elements merely recite the words “apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, the additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements, individually or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims:
Claims 7-11 recite further elements related to the steps of the parent claims for determining relationships between lower-level learning outcomes, high-level learning outcome, and activities. These activities fail to differentiate the claims from the related activities in the parent claims and fail to provide any material to render the claimed invention to be significantly more than the identified abstract ideas, as outlined below.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the weights assigned to the lower-level learning outcomes are based on a relative importance of the lower-level learning outcome to the high-level learning outcome”, which specifies further steps related to determining a relationship between lower-level learning outcome and high-level learning outcome, but does not make the claims any less abstract.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the weights assigned to the lower-level learning outcomes are based on a semantic analysis of one or more resources associated with the lower-level learning outcome or the high-level learning outcome”, which specifies further steps related to determining a relationship between lower-level learning outcome and high-level learning outcome, but does not make the claims any less abstract.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the effectiveness value for each of the plurality of learning activities in relation to the associated lower-level learning outcome is based on historical assessment information for each of the plurality of learning activities”, which specifies further steps related to determining a relationship between lower-level learning outcome and activities, but does not make the claims any less abstract.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the historical assessment information comprises historical grades”, which specifies further steps related to determining a relationship between lower-level learning outcome and activities, but does not make the claims any less abstract.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the verifying that the high-level learning outcome has been met by the plurality of learning activities for each of the lower-level learning outcomes comprises determining if there are any lower-level learning outcomes for which there have not been any activities assigned”, which specifies further steps related to determining a relationship between lower-level learning outcome and activities, but does not make the claims any less abstract.
The claims do not provide any new additional limitations or meaningful limits beyond abstract idea that are not addressed above in the independent claims therefore, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they provide significantly more to the abstract idea. Thus, after considering all claim elements, both individually and as a whole, it has been determined that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Therefore, Claims 7-11 are ineligible
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-3 and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnhart (Pub. No. US 2015/0147740 A1) in view of Luca (Pub. No. US 2014/0188574 A1) in further view of Bradford et al. (Pub. No. US 2006/0147890 A1).
In regards to Claims 1-3, Velasquez discloses:
A method/system comprising:
providing a plurality of computing devices for communicating with a plurality of users of the learning management system, the learning management system including a plurality of users enrolled in a plurality of courses; ([0024]-[0026], multiple learners access the learning management system (see at least Fig. 1 for an example of a learning management system) though learner devices (computers); [0040], learners can be enrolled in more than one course)
providing at least one server in communication with the plurality of computing devices, the at least one server having at least one data storage device coupled thereto; (Fig. 1; Fig. 8; [0107]; [0108], devices can be connected via a server and include a storage medium)
determining, automatically by the at least one server, a high-level structure learning outcome and, based on the high-level learning outcome, a plurality of lower-level structure learning outcomes corresponding to the high-level learning outcome, wherein the lower-level learning outcomes are each assigned a weight in relation to the high-level learning outcome ([0037], weights can be assigned to topics in a curriculum/course to show the importance of those topics (lower-level structure learning outcomes), thus identifying learning outcomes for the high-level learning structure (for example which topics are “essential”, i.e. must be mastered for the curriculum/course), these assigned topic weights allow the server/system to determine what the desired outcomes are (such as the importance of mastering each topic to the overall goal) for the high-level learning structure (curriculum/course) and based on that outcome, determine what topics (and associated activities/content) to provide the user to achieve these high-level outcomes (criteria such as mastering topics being essential represents lower-level structure learning outcomes that correspond to higher-level structure learning outcomes; [0038], additionally discusses the importance of topics to a curriculum (desired outcomes); [0029], further discusses prioritization of topics)
determining, by the at least one server, a plurality of learning activities for each of the plurality of lower-level learning outcomes, ([0064], lower level learning outcomes (topic performance) can be associated with multiple activities (“…one or more assessments or interactive modules associated with the topic.”), [0082], “While disclosures herein frequently refer to selection between topics, it will be appreciated that disclosed techniques can alternatively or additionally be applied to other types of selections. For example, a selection can be made from amongst types of content objects (e.g., multi-media, assessment, book chapters, etc.), question types in an assessment (e.g., word problem, logic problems or numeric problems), or skill (or intensity level).”)
executing each learning activity and obtain a grade for each of the plurality of activities for each of the lower-level learning outcomes; ([0041]; [0042]; [0064], lower-level learning structures/outcomes (topic performance) can be associated with multiple activities (“…one or more assessments or interactive modules associated with the topic.”) provided to the user and completion criteria (outcomes) for those lower-level learning structures are based on scores (grades) for those activities)
Barnhart discloses the above system/method for assessing topics (low-level) through scored/graded assessments (activities), and topics having weights related to their importance to a higher-level course/curriculum outcome. Although it may be implied, Barnhart does not explicitly disclose that the outcome for the higher-level outcome is determined based on grades for the activities and weights of the lower-level outcomes. However, Luca teaches:
verifying that the high-level learning outcome has been met by the plurality of learning activities for each of the lower-level learning outcomes;
generating a rubric for each of the lower-level learning outcomes and associating the rubric with the plurality of activities for that lower-level learning outcome when obtaining the grade for each of the plurality of activities; and
determining an outcome for the high-level learning outcome based on the grade for each of the plurality of learning activities and the weight assigned to the associated lower-level learning outcome (learning structures are provided in a hierarchical manner that can be arranged in many different ways with many different levels (see at least Fig. 17-Fig. 19; [0086]; [0087]), at least one example is courses that are divided in to goal categories (comparable to topics in Barnhart, for example research, general knowledge, etc.) and within those goal categories are goals that can be scored/graded (comparable to activities in Barnhart), Fig-17; Fig. 19, demonstrates grading system for grading a course (high-level outcome has been met) that includes scores for assessments (activities) that make up an overall score for a goal category (lower-level) within a course (higher-level) and demonstrates that goal categories within a course are weighted (see also [0087]; [0140]; [0142], for examples of rubrics and goal scoring for goals within a goal category); [0095], overall grades for a class include assignment grades and weights of goal categories; [0059]; [0060], etc., rubrics are developed for goals and are associated with activities)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the system of Barnhart so as to have included verifying that the high-level learning outcome has been met by the plurality of learning activities for each of the lower-level learning outcomes; generating a rubric for each of the lower-level learning outcomes and associating the rubric with the plurality of activities for that lower-level learning outcome when obtaining the grade for each of the plurality of activities; and determining an outcome for the high-level learning outcome based on the grade for each of the plurality of learning activities and the weight assigned to the associated lower-level learning outcome, as taught by Luca.
Barnhart discloses a “base” method/system in which grades and weights are applied to activities and low-level outcomes that are related to higher-level outcomes, as shown above. Luca teaches a comparable method/system in which grades and weights are applied to activities and low-level outcomes in order to achieve higher-level outcomes, as shown above. Luca also teaches an embodiment in which the grades and weights are specifically used to verify that the high-level outcome has been met in conjunction with rubrics, as shown above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the adaptation of verifying that the high-level learning outcome has been met by the plurality of learning activities for each of the lower-level learning outcomes; generating a rubric for each of the lower-level learning outcomes and associating the rubric with the plurality of activities for that lower-level learning outcome when obtaining the grade for each of the plurality of activities; and determining an outcome for the high-level learning outcome based on the grade for each of the plurality of learning activities and the weight assigned to the associated lower-level learning outcome to Barnhart could be performed with the technical expertise demonstrated in the applied references. (See KSR [127 S Ct. at 1739] "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.")
Barnhart/Luca discloses the above system/method for determining activities associated with low-level learning structure outcomes. Barnhart/Luca does not explicitly disclose that the activities are selected based on an effectiveness value, however, Bradford teaches:
wherein the plurality of learning activities is selected based on an effectiveness value for each of the plurality of learning activities in relation to the associated lower-level learning outcome; ([0027]; [0031]; [0055]; [0071], activity types are selected in relations to learning outcomes, for example selecting exams that have questions specifically associate with the learning outcome which would be more effective in obtaining the lower-level outcome, additionally, analysis is made to determine “…student performance relative to assessment content and learning outcomes over time…” indicating a determination of the effectiveness of the activities)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Barnhart/Luca so as to have included wherein the plurality of learning activities is selected based on an effectiveness value for each of the plurality of learning activities in relation to the associated lower-level learning outcome, as taught by Bradford in order to ensure that students are provided the most useful and appropriate activities to achieve the learning outcome (Bradford, [0027]; [0031]; [0055]; [0071]).
In regards to Claim 7, Barnhart discloses:
wherein the weights assigned to the lower-level learning outcomes are based on a relative importance of the lower-level learning outcome to the high-level learning outcome ([0038])
In regards to Claim 8, Barnhart discloses:
wherein the weights assigned to the lower-level learning outcomes are based on a semantic analysis of one or more resources associated with the lower-level learning outcome or the high-level learning outcome ([0035], content objects (resources) can be determined to be relevant based on semantic analysis (such as title or text) and weights assigned based on that analysis)
In regards to Claim 9, Barnhart/Luca discloses the above system/method for determining activities associated with low-level learning structure outcomes. Barnhart/Luca does not explicitly disclose that the activities are selected based on an historical analysis, however, Bradford teaches:
wherein the effectiveness value for each of the plurality of learning activities in relation to the associated lower-level learning outcome is based on historical assessment information for each of the plurality of learning activities ([0027]; [0031]; [0055]; [0071], activity types are selected in relations to learning outcomes, for example selecting exams that have questions specifically associate with the learning outcome which would be more effective in obtaining the lower-level outcome, additionally, analysis is made to determine “…student performance relative to assessment content and learning outcomes over time…” indicating a determination of the effectiveness of the activities)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Barnhart/Luca so as to have included wherein the effectiveness value for each of the plurality of learning activities in relation to the associated lower-level learning outcome is based on historical assessment information for each of the plurality of learning activities, as taught by Bradford in order to ensure that students are provided the most useful and appropriate activities to achieve the learning outcome (Bradford, [0027]; [0031]; [0055]; [0071]).
In regards to Claim 10, Barnhart discloses:
wherein the historical assessment information comprises historical grades ([0038])
In regards to Claim 11, Barnhart discloses:
wherein the verifying that the high-level learning outcome has been met by the plurality of learning activities for each of the lower-level learning outcomes comprises determining if there are any lower-level learning outcomes for which there have not been any activities assigned ([0064], completion criteria for the low-level structure (topic) can be time-based (a date or a length spent in a course) and is not dependent on activities being assigned, also completion criteria for a topic can be based on “…after a learner has mastered another topic…”, indicating that they were not assigned any activities and completed the topic by mastering another topic)
Additional Prior Art Not Cited In Rejections
Ische (Publication No. US 2015/0019452 A1), which is drawn to the combination of grade objects for outcomes such as quizzes, essays, etc. (low-level outcomes) to determine an overall score for an overall assessment (high-level outcome). See at least FIGURE 5; [0018]; [0060]; [0076]; [0081]; [0082]; and Claim 7.
Mei et al. (Pub. No. US 2009/0006368 A1), which is drawn to recommending videos based on detection that the at least one user has spent a predetermined amount of time on the first activity or the second activity. See at least [0100].
Linton (Patent No. US 6,282,404 B1), which is drawn to measuring the amount of time a user takes to complete a quiz related to a video. See at least column 1, lines 6-15 and column 3, lines 1-28.
Packard et al. (Pub. No. US 2008/0057480 A1), which is drawn to overall grades relating to lesson grades and updating/adjusting lessons and assignments. See at least [0069]; [0072]; [0098]; [0099]; [0105].
Germany, II et al. (Pub. No. US 2010/0268686 A1), which is drawn to lessons impacting overall grades and proposing changes in curriculum. See at least [0024]; [0038]; [0048].
Rauta (Pub. No. US 2012/0329029 A1), which is drawn to analyzing a user’s performance in a course, including measuring the amount of time it takes to complete a question. See at least [0061].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
I. Rejections Under 35 USC § 101:
Applicant asserts that the claimed invention performs various technical functions, solves technical problems, and is a technology rooted solution to a technological problem. However, Applicant has provided no evidence or background information to demonstrate the alleged technological problem or need in the field of art. For example, Applicant has asserted that the claimed invention processes a very complex and large amount of data, too large for mental processing, but has not provided any evidence to demonstrated that amount of data processed would necessarily have a complexity or extremely large amount of data. Nor has Applicant demonstrated that the claimed invention “operate[s] way different than conventional human powered learning management” and has not provided any discussion of the conventional systems and why they would be different than Applicant claims.
See MPEP 2106.05(a), Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field (“If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.”).
Some of the above topics were also addressed in the previous office action. Those response are provided here for reference:
Applicant asserts that the claimed invention provides a technical improvement by providing efficiency of communication over the learning network, using less processing power, and improve inefficiencies sin the learning management networks. However, the claims, as written, do not clearly identify how these alleged improvements and benefits would be achieved in a manner that is significantly more than the abstract ideas. The claims merely recite steps for comparing data and data relationships to make determinations regarding user behavior and learning.
Additionally, the specification does not provide sufficient evidence to support these assertions. The specification (including the paragraphs cited by applicant) make general, broad assertions regarding the benefits of the disclosed invention (including material that is not claims), but does not provide sufficient evidence regarding how/why these alleged improvements in efficiency would be achieved over prior systems/methods.
See MPEP 2106.05(a), Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field (“If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.”).
Applicant argues that the is an inherent problem that has a solution rooted in the technology. However, Applicant has not demonstrated sufficient evidence that the claimed invention requires the technology to be performed. As stated above, the claims merely recite steps for comparing data and data relationships to make determinations regarding user behavior and learning. There is no indication that this data comparison could not be performed outside of the computer.
II. Rejections Under 35 USC § 103:
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAUN D SENSENIG whose telephone number is (571)270-5393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:00am-4:00pm.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached on 571-272-6872. 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.
/S.D.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3629 January 10, 2026
/LYNDA JASMIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629