DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the RCE filed 28 January 2026.
Claims 9, 10, and 13–15, 18–20, 22, and 23 are pending. Claims 9 and 18 are independent.
Claims 9, 10, and 13–15, 18–20, 22, and 23 are rejected.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 24 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The objections to claim 18 and its dependent claims are withdrawn in light of the amendment.
Regarding the rejections under § 103, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive; therefore, the rejections are withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Kordomatis et al.
Claim Rejections—35 U.S.C. § 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.
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 C.F.R. § 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.
Claims 9, 10, and 13–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Allan (US 2004/0111488 A1) in view of Dunn et al. (US 2021/030342 A1) [hereinafter Dunn], Staszak et al. (US 2020/0110781 A1) [hereinafter Staszak], Kandpal (US 2016/0147645 A1), Dubé-Cousineau (US 2020/0134098 A1), Trahan et al. (US 2013/0007100 A1) [hereinafter Trahan], Kordomatis et al. (“Web Object Identification for Web Automation and Meta-Search”) [hereinafter Kordomatis],and Allen et al. (US 2009/0119587 A1) [hereinafter Allen].
Regarding independent claim 9, Allan teaches [a]n automated computer-implemented method of executing a task on a web page, the task made up of actions, the web page being rendered by a [browser] using an object model, the headless browser implemented at a playback engine, the playback engine further implementing a performance controller and a virtual network computing (VNC) server instance, the method comprising: Recording and playback of transactions [tasks] in a web browser using the Document Object Model (Allan, abstract). […] receiving, by the [browser], an action message containing instructions for the [browser] to perform an action on the web page, […]; A first request [action message] is retrieved from a script file (Allan, ¶ 80). performing the action; The request is replayed (Allan, ¶ 80). detecting a change in the object model caused by the performing the action; The browser receives a response, which may cause a change in the Document Object Model (Allan, ¶¶ 86–88). determining that the change in the object model has completed; The DOM reflects the results of the request (Allan, ¶ 88). responsive to the determining, sending, by the [browser], an update message containing the change in the object model caused by the performing the action; The DOM information is sent to the TRP (transaction recordation and playback) utility for use with the subsequent request (Allan, ¶ 88). […] and receiving, by the [browser], the next action message. The TRP utility generates the next request (Allan, ¶ 89).
Allan teaches using a stored script to automate browser actions, but does not expressly teach doing so based on natural language input. However, Dunn teaches: determining, from a natural language input, the task; Natural language processing or understanding is used to determine a task intent and details/context from a user input (Dunn, ¶¶ 27, 35, 52). loading, by the performance controller from a task database, a playback performance skeleton for the task; A task model [playback performance skeleton] is identified based on the task intent; the task model may be retrieved from a storage location, e.g., a database [task database] (Dunn, ¶¶ 25, 27). The task automation may be implemented as a remote server (Dunn, ¶¶ 77–78). generating, at the performance controller, a next action message, wherein the next action message is based on the playback performance skeleton and on an indication of a user input received, responsive to the user intervention request on the electronic device Subtasks [next actions] are determined based on the task model and, e.g., data is retrieved based on the task intent determined from the user input (Dunn, ¶¶ 27–28).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Allan with those of Dunn. One would have been motivated to do so in order to make it easier for the user to perform the task (Dunn, ¶¶ 1–2).
Allan/Dunn teaches replaying recorded web browser transactions, but does not expressly teach using a headless browser. However, Staszak teaches: [an automated computer-implemented method of executing a task on a web page, the task made up of actions, the web page being rendered by a] headless browser A headless browser is used to perform an automated process (Staszak, ¶¶ 5–8, 15). The automated process includes receiving a change in the DOM [document object model] and inspecting the DOM to determine the subsequent action (Staszak, ¶ 112). transmitting, […] to the electronic device, a user intervention request; The automation process may be paused to request input from a human user that will allow the automation process to continue (Staszak, ¶¶ 14, 60–95, figs. 3–4). The information provided by the user may be, e.g., for a question on a form requesting information not collected from the user in advance (Staszak, ¶ 111).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Allan/Dunn with those of Staszak. Doing so would have been a matter of simple substitution of one known element (the non-headless browser) for another (the headless browser) to obtain a predictable result (the recordation/playback system of Allan, wherein the browser used is a headless browser).
Allan/Dunn/Staszak teaches executing actions on a headless browser using a recordation and playback system implemented as a browser plug-in (Allan, ¶ 29) but does not expressly teach a “performance controller”. However, Kandpal teaches: [receiving, by the headless browser from] a performance controller, [an action message] Commands [actions] are provided to a browser automation module to control a web browser (Kandpal, ¶ 34). [responsive to the determining, sending, by the headless browser] to the performance controller, [an update message] Results of executing the commands are received (Kandpal, ¶ 35). the next action message containing instructions for the headless browser to perform a next action on the web page, the next action message determined, by the performance controller, based on the change in the object model; The testing module enables conditional branches, such that commands [actions] are generated in response to the execution of previous commands [actions] (Kandpal, ¶¶ 35, 55).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Allan/Dunn/Staszak with those of Kandpal. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow the user to perform more complex tests on the web pages (Kandpal, ¶¶ 28–30).
Allan/Dunn/Staszak/Kandpal teaches a “performance controller” including a browser automation tool implemented as a server, e.g., using Selenium (Kandpal, ¶ 61), but does not expressly teach a separate playback server and browser. However, Dubé-Cousineau teaches: wherein the performance controller is containerized as a separate playback server that is separate from the headless browser A browser is automated using a server, e.g., using Selenium WebDriver, wherein the server remotely controls the web browser, which is on a different machine (Dubé-Cousineau, ¶¶ 37, 45, 47, 65).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Allan/Dunn/Staszak/Kandpal with those of Dubé-Cousineau. Doing so would have been a matter of simple substitution of one known element (the browser and software for controlling the browser residing on the same machine) for another (the browser and software for controlling the browser residing on different machines) to yield a predictable result (a headless browser that is automated via software residing on a different machine).
Allan/Dunn/Staszak/Kandpal/Dubé-Cousineau teaches rendering a web page by a server, but does not expressly teach using VNC. However, Trahan teaches: establishing, by the VNC server instance, a VNC connection between the performance controller and an electronic device; A client establishes a browsing session, wherein the web pages are rendered by a browser on a virtual machine on a server (Trahan, ¶¶ 18-23). The communication between the client and server may be via a remote session protocol, including VNC (Trahan, ¶¶ 66-69). [transmitting,] over the VNC connection [to the electronic device, a user intervention request;] [generating, at the performance controller, a next action message, wherein the next action message is based on the playback performance skeleton and on an indication of a user input received on the electronic device,] the indication received over the VNC connection, […] Browser session information, e.g. user input, is transmitted using the remote session protocol (Trahan, ¶¶ 22, 66, 68, 93).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Allan/Dunn/Staszak/Kandpal/Dubé-Cousineau with those of Trahan. One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve the user experience on devices and/or connections with limited performance (Trahan, ¶ 4).
Allan/Dunn/Staszak/Kandpal/Dubé-Cousineau/Trahan teaches executing a task on a web page, and requesting information from a user, e.g., for filling a form field, but does not expressly teach transmitting a user intervention request in response to not finding a geometrically compatible object model element. However, Kordomatis teaches: the performance controller determining, from the recorded performance skeleton, an object model element to attempt to find and attempting to find the object model element, wherein the attempting to find the object model element includes computing a geometric similarity score between a geometric representation of the object model element and geometric representations of candidate elements in the object model and determining geometric compatibility based on the geometric similarity score; Objects on a web page are described using a plurality of features, including geometric configurations (Kordomatis, § 3). The features include the area of the object, its height, width, position, etc. (Kordomatis, Table 3). The object on the page is found by calculating a distance between the desired object and the objects on a web page, based on their features (Kordomatis, § 2, § 5).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Allan/Dunn/Staszak/Kandpal/Dubé-Cousineau/Trahan with those of Kordomatis. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow the system to identify objects on web pages in a way that is more robust against changes to the page (Kordomatis, § 8, second and third paragraphs).
Allan/Dunn/Staszak/Kandpal/Dubé-Cousineau/Trahan/Kordomatis teaches transmitting a user intervention request in response to not finding a geometrically compatible object model element, but does not expressly teach computing a geometric similarity score. However, Allen teaches: responsive to the performance controller determining, based on the geometric similarity score, that no candidate element is geometrically compatible, transmitting, by the playback engine over the VNC connection to the electronic device, a user intervention request; If the system is unable to find an object using the existing task database, the system will ask the user for help, e.g., further instruction or demonstration (Allen, ¶ 70).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Allan/Dunn/Staszak/Kandpal/Dubé-Cousineau/Trahan/Kordomatis with those of Allen. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow the system to accommodate changes to the web page and to learn additional tasks (Allen, ¶¶ 8, 16, 61-63, 68, 70).
Regarding dependent claim 10, the rejection of parent claim 9 is incorporated and Allan/Dunn/Staszak/Kandpal/Dubé-Cousineau/Trahan/Kordomatis/Allen further teaches: wherein the object model comprises a Document Object Model (DOM). The TRP uses the Document Object Model maintained by the web browser (Allan, ¶ 37).
Regarding dependent claim 13, the rejection of parent claim 9 is incorporated and Allan/Dunn/Staszak/Kandpal/Dubé-Cousineau/Trahan/Kordomatis/Allen further teaches: wherein each of the action message and next action message are representative of one of a right click, a left click, a double click, a scroll, a navigation action, a hold and drag action or a typing action. The recorded events may be a mouse button down event [click] or a keyboard event [typing action] (Allan, ¶ 58).
Regarding dependent claim 14, the rejection of parent claim 9 is incorporated and Allan/Dunn/Staszak/Kandpal/Dubé-Cousineau/Trahan/Kordomatis/Allen further teaches: wherein the next action message comprises an indication that the task is complete. A determination is made as to whether the script contains further transactions, and if not, the playback is concluded (Allan, ¶ 84).
Regarding dependent claim 15, the rejection of parent claim 9 is incorporated and Allan/Dunn/Staszak/Kandpal/Dubé-Cousineau/Trahan/Kordomatis/Allen further teaches: generating, at the performance controller, the action message, wherein the action message is based on the natural language input and the playback performance skeleton. Subtasks [the (first) action or subsequent actions] are determined based on the task model and, e.g., data is retrieved based on the task intent determined from the user input (Dunn, ¶¶ 27–28).
Claims 18–20, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Allan in view of Dunn, Staszak, Kandpal, Dubé-Cousineau, Trahan, Kordomatis, and Allen, further in view of Brooks et al. (US 9,531,825 B1) [hereinafter Brooks].
Regarding independent claim 18, Allan teaches [a]n automated computer-implemented method of executing a task across a first web page […], the task made up of actions, […] the first web page […] being rendered by a [browser] using a[n] object model […], the headless browser implemented at a playback engine, the playback engine further implementing a performance controller and a virtual network computing (VNC) server instance, the method comprising: […] receiving, by the first [browser], an action message containing instructions for the first [browser] to perform an action on the first web page, […]; A first request [action message] is retrieved from a script file (Allan, ¶ 80). performing the action on the first web page; The request is replayed (Allan, ¶ 80). detecting a change in the first object model caused by the performing the action, such that an updated first object model is generated; The browser receives a response, which may cause a change in the Document Object Model (Allan, ¶¶ 86–88). responsive to detecting the change, transmitting, by the first headless browser, a representation of the action and a representation of the updated first object model; The DOM reflects the results of the request (Allan, ¶ 88). The DOM information is sent to the TRP (transaction recordation and playback) utility for use with the subsequent request (Allan, ¶ 88). […]
Allan teaches using a stored script to automate browser actions, but does not expressly teach doing so based on natural language input. However, Dunn teaches: determining, from a natural language input, the task; Natural language processing or understanding is used to determine a task intent and details/context from a user input (Dunn, ¶¶ 27, 35, 52). loading, by the performance controller from a task database, a playback performance skeleton for the task; A task model [playback performance skeleton] is identified based on the task intent; the task model may be retrieved from a storage location, e.g., a database [task database] (Dunn, ¶¶ 25, 27). The task automation may be implemented as a remote server (Dunn, ¶¶ 77–78). generating, at the performance controller, a next action message, wherein the next action message is based on the playback performance skeleton and on an indication of a user input received, responsive to the user intervention request, on the electronic device […]; Subtasks [next actions] are determined based on the task model and, e.g., data is retrieved based on the task intent determined from the user input (Dunn, ¶¶ 27–28).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Allan with those of Dunn. One would have been motivated to do so in order to make it easier for the user to perform the task (Dunn, ¶¶ 1–2).
Allan/Dunn teaches replaying recorded web browser transactions, but does not expressly teach using a headless browser. However, Staszak teaches: [an automated computer-implemented method of executing a task on a web page, the task made up of actions, the web page being rendered by a] headless browser A headless browser is used to perform an automated process (Staszak, ¶¶ 5–8, 15). The automated process includes receiving a change in the DOM [document object model] and inspecting the DOM to determine the subsequent action (Staszak, ¶ 112).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Allan with those of Staszak. Doing so would have been a matter of simple substitution of one known element (the non-headless browser) for another (the headless browser) to obtain a predictable result (the recordation/playback system of Allan, wherein the browser used is a headless browser).
Allan/Dunn/Staszak teaches replaying recorded web browser transactions on a single web page, but does not expressly teach multiple web pages. However, Brooks teaches: receiving, by the second [browser], the next action message; User browser activities involving multiple web pages and windows are replayed (Brooks, col. 1 l. 15–30). A replay server receives the recorded activities (Brooks, col. 2 l. 50 to col. 3 l. 15). interpreting the next action message; and When an event is selected for replay, the server determines, e.g. a number of windows that were in use (Brooks, col. 3 l. 30–35). responsive to the interpreting, performing, by the second [browser], the next action on the second web page. The replay server displays the replay of the selected activities (Brooks, col. 2 l. 5–15, col. 3 l. 35–45, FIG. 5).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Allan/Dunn/Staszak with those of Brooks. One would have been motivated to do so in order to accurately replay web browser activities involving multiple tabs or windows, e.g. a parent page and child page (Brooks, col. 1 l. 60 to col. 2 l. 10).
Allan/Dunn/Staszak/Brooks teaches executing actions on a headless browser, but does not expressly teach a “performance controller”. However, Kandpal teaches: [receiving, by the first headless browser from] a performance controller, [an action message] Commands [actions] are provided to a browser automation module to control a web browser (Kandpal, ¶ 34). [responsive to detecting the change, transmitting, by the first headless browser] to the performance controller, [a representation of the action and a representation of the updated first object model] Results of executing the commands are received (Kandpal, ¶ 35). the next action message containing instructions for the headless browser to perform a next action on the second web page, the next action message determined, by the performance controller, based on the change in the object model The testing module enables conditional branches, such that commands [actions] are generated in response to the execution of previous commands [actions] (Kandpal, ¶¶ 35, 55).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Allan/Dunn/Staszak/Brooks with those of Kandpal. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow the user to perform more complex tests on the web pages (Kandpal, ¶¶ 28–30).
Allan/Dunn/Staszak/Brooks/Kandpal teaches a “performance controller” including a browser automation tool implemented as a server, e.g., using Selenium (Kandpal, ¶ 61), but does not expressly teach a separate playback server and browser. However, Dubé-Cousineau teaches: wherein the performance controller is containerized as a separate playback server that is separate from the first headless browser A browser is automated using a server, e.g., using Selenium WebDriver, wherein the server remotely controls the web browser, which is on a different machine (Dubé-Cousineau, ¶¶ 37, 45, 47, 65).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Allan/Dunn/Staszak/Brooks/Kandpal with those of Dubé-Cousineau. Doing so would have been a matter of simple substitution of one known element (the browser and software for controlling the browser residing on the same machine) for another (the browser and software for controlling the browser residing on different machines) to yield a predictable result (a headless browser that is automated via software residing on a different machine).
Allan/Dunn/Staszak/Brooks/Kandpal/Dubé-Cousineau teaches rendering a web page by a server, but does not expressly teach using VNC. However, Trahan teaches: establishing, by the VNC server instance, a VNC connection between the performance controller and an electronic device; A client establishes a browsing session, wherein the web pages are rendered by a browser ona virtual machine on a server (Trahan, ¶¶ 18-23). The communication between the client and server may be via a remote session protocol, including VNC (Trahan, ¶¶ 66-69). the indication received over the VNC connection, […] Browser session information, e.g. user input, is transmitted using the remote session protocol (Trahan, ¶¶ 22, 66, 68, 93).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Allan/Dunn/Staszak/Brooks/Kandpal/Dubé-Cousineau with those of Trahan. One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve the user experience on devices and/or connections with limited performance (Trahan, ¶ 4).
Allan/Dunn/Staszak/Brooks/Kandpal/Dubé-Cousineau/Trahan teaches executing a task on a web page, and requesting information from a user, e.g., for filling a form field, but does not expressly teach transmitting a user intervention request in response to not finding a geometrically compatible object model element. However, Kordomatis teaches: the performance controller determining, from the recorded performance skeleton, an object model element to attempt to find and attempting to find the object model element, wherein the attempting to find the object model element includes computing a geometric similarity score between a geometric representation of the object model element and geometric representations of candidate elements in the object model and determining geometric compatibility based on the geometric similarity score; Objects on a web page are described using a plurality of features, including geometric configurations (Kordomatis, § 3). The features include the area of the object, its height, width, position, etc. (Kordomatis, Table 3). The object on the page is found by calculating a distance between the desired object and the objects on a web page, based on their features (Kordomatis, § 2, § 5).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Allan/Dunn/Staszak/Brooks/Kandpal/Dubé-Cousineau/Trahan with those of Kordomatis. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow the system to identify objects on web pages in a way that is more robust against changes to the page (Kordomatis, § 8, second and third paragraphs).
Allan/Dunn/Staszak/Brooks/Kandpal/Dubé-Cousineau/Trahan/Kordomatis teaches transmitting a user intervention request in response to not finding a geometrically compatible object model element, but does not expressly teach computing a geometric similarity score. However, Allen teaches: responsive to the performance controller determining, based on the geometric similarity score, that no candidate element is geometrically compatible, transmitting, by the playback engine over the VNC connection to the electronic device, a user intervention request; If the system is unable to find an object using the existing task database, the system will ask the user for help, e.g., further instruction or demonstration (Allen, ¶ 70).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Allan/Dunn/Staszak/Brooks/Kandpal/Dubé-Cousineau/Trahan/Kordomatis with those of Allen. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow the system to accommodate changes to the web page and to learn additional tasks (Allen, ¶¶ 8, 16, 61-63, 68, 70).
Regarding dependent claim 19, the rejection of parent claim 18 is incorporated and Allan/Dunn/Staszak/Brooks/Kandpal/Dubé-Cousineau/Trahan/Kordomatis/Allen further teaches: wherein the next action message includes data extracted from the first object model. Dynamic information from the DOM is used for subsequent requests during replay of transactions (Allan, ¶¶ 37, 108).
Regarding dependent claim 20, the rejection of parent claim 18 is incorporated and Allan/Dunn/Staszak/Brooks/Kandpal/Dubé-Cousineau/Trahan/Kordomatis/Allen further teaches: wherein the first object model and the second object model each comprise a Document Object Model (DOM). The TRP uses the Document Object Model maintained by the web browser (Allan, ¶ 37).
Regarding dependent claim 22, the rejection of parent claim 18 is incorporated and Allan/Dunn/Staszak/Brooks/Kandpal/Dubé-Cousineau/Trahan/Kordomatis/Allen further teaches: wherein each of the action message and next action message is one of a right click, a left click, and a typing action. The recorded events may be a mouse button down event [click] or a keyboard event [typing action] (Allan, ¶ 58).
Regarding dependent claim 23, the rejection of parent claim 18 is incorporated and Allan/Dunn/Staszak/Brooks/Kandpal/Dubé-Cousineau/Trahan/Kordomatis/Allen further teaches: determining, at the performance controller, the action message based on a natural language input and a recorded performance skeleton. Subtasks [next actions] are determined based on the task model and, e.g., data is retrieved based on the task intent determined from the user input (Dunn, ¶¶ 27–28). The task model may be a previously stored task model [recorded performance skeleton] (Dunn, ¶ 55).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tyler Schallhorn whose telephone number is 571-270-3178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. (ET).
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, Tamara Kyle can be reached on 571-272-4241. 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 the USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/Tyler Schallhorn/Examiner, Art Unit 2144
/TAMARA T KYLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2144