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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 on18 May 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
The amended claim set received 18 May 2026 has been entered into the application.
Claims 1 and 11 are amended.
Claim 2-6, 8, 10, and 12-14 are cancelled.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 9, 11, and 15 are pending.
Priority
This Application is 371 of PCT/KR2018/014079 filed 16 November 2018 which claims foreign priority to KR10-2018-0139875 filed 14 November 2018 and KR10-2018-0116410 filed 28 September 2018.
Specification
The amendment filed 18 May 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is “… hash table enabling ‘constant-time lookup’…” of claim 1.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
35 USC § 112(a)
It is noted the amendments received 18 May 2026 are necessitated by new ground(s) of rejection.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 7, 9, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
New Matter
Claim 1 was amended to recites “…hash table enabling constant-time lookup for each k-mer read…". The specification [36] does not provide support or evidence in any examples or embodiments exemplifying methods, steps, or algorithms such that one or ordinary skill in the art could enable constant-time lookup for each k-mer and/or such that to provide a data structures (i.e., hash table(s)) specifically designed or implemented for nucleic acid sequence data storage for constant-time look-up. Thus, the amended limitations are new matter. It is recommended for the Applicant to amend the claims to provide language and limitations consistent with and supported by the disclosure.
Claims 7, 9, and 15 are rejected because they fail to provide limitations to overcome the deficiencies of the base claim(s).
35 USC § 112(b)
It is noted the amendments received 18 May 2026 are necessitated by new ground(s) of rejection.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 7, and 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 wherein the structured of the hash table step was amended to recite “…hash table enabling constant-time look up…”. The term “constant-time lookup” is rendered indefinite because it is not clear what is mean by “constant-time look up”. The specification does not provide a definition in any embodiment or example exemplifying as to what is “constant-time look up” and/or is referring to with respect to looking up k-mers in a hash table. It is recommended to amend the claim to provide either as what the “constant-time look up” is or amend the claim with language supported and consisted with the specification such that the bounds of the “constant-time look up” are captured.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected because they fail to provide limitations to overcome the deficiencies of the base claim(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The instant rejection is maintained for reason for record in the Office Action mailed 19 December 2025 and modified in view of the amendments filed18 May 2026.
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, 7, 9, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Following the flowchart of MPEP 2106
Step I - Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition
Claims 1, 7, and 9 are directed towards a method, so a process.
Claims 11 and 15 are drawn to an apparatus, so a machine.
2A Prong II - Identification of an Abstract Idea
Claim 1 recites:
constructing, by the computer apparatus, a k-mer table of (1) k-mer length, (2) published SNP and INDEL data, and (3) storing the k-mers as entries.
This step can be performed in the human mind by organizing information (i.e., k-mer length, published k-mer mutations) to construct a table and is therefore an abstract. Moreover, the constructing step encompasses extracting information (i.e., k-mer length from a reference genome, and k-mers from published SNP and INDEL data) which encompasses organizing extracted/filtered data/information for subsequent storage (e.g., storing in a table) which reads on abstract ideas.
wherein the k-mer table integrates multi-race genomic variation information to distinguish k-mers indicative of structural variations from k-mers attributable to inter-racial or inter-individual sequence differences
This step describes data of the k-mer tables is used to distinguish k-mers indicative of structural variations or inter-individual sequence differences.
performing, by the computer apparatus, a hash table lookup for each read of the sample sequence data to determine whether each k-mer read is present in the k-mer table
This step can be performed in the human mind by observing data (i.e., looking up) and evaluating sequence read data to determined whether k-mers are present or nor and is therefore an abstract idea.
extracting, by the computer apparatus, at least one target k-mer read by filtering out k-mer reads identified as present in the k-mer table identified as present in the k-mer table, thereby removing k-mers attributable to interracial differences sequence differences, inter-individual differences, and normal genomic sequences.
This step can be performed in the human mind by observing, comparing, and evaluating information (i.e., k-mers/sequence read data) to identify k-mers present in a table and is therefore an abstract idea. This step encompasses using mathematical computations (i.e., inequalities and equalities) for filtering data (i.e., nucleic acid data/k-mer) which reads on abstract ideas.
determining, by the computer apparatus, a breakpoint and a candidate region of a structural variation by mapping only the extracted at least one target k-mer read to standard reference genome data
This step can be performed in the human mind by observing and evaluating data (i.e., nucleic acid/sequence data) and organizing the data for mapping only the extracted k-mers to a standard reference genome data to determine a breakpoint and a candidate region of a structural variation and is there an abstract idea. This step encompasses genetic mapping methods/techniques (i.e., recombination frequencies, read mapping and string matching, statistics/probability) which encompasses using mathematical/statistical computations for mapping the exact order of the DNA base pairs (Adenine, Thymine, Cytosine, and Guanine) of the genetic structural variation (i.e., breakpoints and candidate region) of a subject’s sequence read (i.e., k-mers/n-mers) to a reference genome which reads on abstract ideas.
predicting, by the computer apparatus, a structural variation type for the sample sequence data on the basis of a sequence mapping pattern and the breakpoint in the mapping result
This step can be performed in the human mind by observing and evaluating sequence mapping patterns and the breakpoint in the mapping result to predict a structural variation type and is therefore an abstract idea.
wherein the predicted structural variation type is an indicator for cancer diagnosis
The step describes the predicted structural variation type as an indicator for cancer diagnosis.
wherein the k-mer table comprises (i) multi-reference genome data including reference genomes of the plurality of races, (ii) published single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) data, (iii} published small insertions/deletions (INDEL) data and (iv) normal genome data of a normal person
This step is a description of the table that is being analyzed by the abstract idea/mental process.
wherein the standard reference genome data is single reference genome data for a specific race.
This step is a description of the data that is being analyzed by the abstract idea/mental process.
wherein the data structure of the k-mer table is a hash table enabling constant-loop for each k-mer read of the sample sequence data.
This step describes the data structure of the k-mer table as a hash table as enabling constant-loop for each k-mer read of the sample sequence data.
Claim 11 recites:
wherein the k-mer table is a hash table constructed from k-mers extracted from (i) reference genomes of a plurality of races, (ii) published SNP data, (iii) published IND EL data, and (iv) normal genome data of a normal person
This step described the hash tables as constructed from extracted k-mers as from (i) reference genomes of a plurality of races, (ii) published SNP data, (iii) published IND EL data, and (iv) normal genome data of a normal person.
perform a hash table lookup for each read of the sample sequence data against the k-mer table to identify k-mer reads present in the k-mer table
This step can be performed in the human mind by organizing observing, comparing, and evaluating information (i.e., hash look up sample sequence) against a k-mer table (i.e., other organized information) to identify k-mer reads present in the k-mer table and is therefore an abstract idea. This step encompasses performing a hash table lookup which encompasses mathematically filtering information (i.e., using equalities and inequalities, modulus) which reads on abstract ideas. This step also encompasses using hash functions (i.e., takes an input (data of any size) (i.e., sequence reads) and translates it into a fixed-size string of characters which encompasses taking existing information (i.e., sequence read, k-mers), manipulating the data using mathematical functions (i.e., hash functions), and organizing the data for identify k-mers in a k-mer table which reads on abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A)(iv).
extract, by the computer apparatus, at least one target k-mer read by filtering out k-mer reads identified as present in the k-mer table identified as present in the k-mer table, thereby removing k-mers attributable to interracial differences sequence differences, inter-individual differences, and normal genomic sequences.
This step can be performed in the human mind by observing, comparing, and evaluating information (i.e., k-mers/sequence read data) to identify k-mers present in a table and is therefore an abstract idea. This step encompasses using mathematical computations (i.e., inequalities and equalities) for filtering data (i.e., nucleic acid data/k-mer) which reads on abstract ideas.
predict the structural variation type on the basis of a sequence mapping pattern and a breakpoint determined by mapping only the extracted at least one target k-mer read to the standard reference genome data
This step can be performed in the human mind by observing and evaluating the sequence mapping pattern and the breakpoint of the target k-mer read that is mapped to the standard reference genome data to predict the structural variation and is therefore an abstract idea.
wherein the predicted structural variation type is an indicator for cancer diagnosis
The step describes the predicted structural variation type as an indicator for cancer diagnosis.
wherein the k-mer table comprises (i) multi-reference genome data including reference genomes of a plurality of races, (ii) published single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) data, (iii) published small insertions/deletions (INDEL) data and (iv) normal genome data of a normal person
This step is a description of the data that is being analyzed by the abstract idea/mental process.
wherein the standard reference genome data is single reference genome data for a specific race
This step this is a description of the data that is being analyzed by the abstract idea/mental process.
Claims 6-7, 9, and 15 are further drawn to limitations that describe the abstract ideas of claims 1 and 11 are therefore also abstract ideas.
2A Prong II - Consideration of Practical Application
Claim 1 does not recite any additional element which integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. Here, in the instant case, the claims merely set forth a method of data analysis for analyzing sequence reads (i.e., k-mers) in a table to determine k-mers and determine breakpoints and candidate structural variations for predicting a structural variation type. Such a result only produces information (i.e., structural variation data) and does not provide for a practical application in the physical realm of physical things and acts, i.e., the claims do not utilize the data generated by the judicial exception to affect any type of change. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A)(iv). Therefore, the claims do not utilize the received sequence data, loaded k-mer table, determined k-mer reads, determined breakpoint and candidate structural variation, and predicted structural variation and abstract ideas to construct a practical application such as treating a subject, transformation of matter, or improving upon an existing technology.
Claim 1 recites constructing a “k-mer” table using (i) extracting k-mers of length k from reference genomes of a plurality of races and (ii) extracting k-mers from published single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) data and published small insertions/deletions (INDEL) data, and (iii) storing the extracted k-mers as entries in a hash table to generate the k-mer table. Here, claim 1 constructing step does not contain any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into practical application because constructing a data table (i.e., k-mer table) which involves organizing (i.e., mentally/mathematically) to provide organized data in the form of a table (i.e., k-mer) which, as noted in Step 2A Prong I of the 101 analyses above, reads on abstract ideas. As such constructing a table does not provide a practical application because constructing a data table reads on abstract ideas (i.e., organizing information) and not physical construction of a physical, tangible object. Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible under Step 2A Prong II of the 101 analyses.
Claim 11 does not recite any additional element which integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Here, in the instant case, the claims merely set forth a method of data analysis for analyzing sequence reads (i.e., k-mers) in a table by extracting and filtering k-mer data for predicting a structural variation type. Such a result only produces information (i.e., structural variation data) and does not provide for a practical application in the real-world realm of physical things and acts, i.e., the claims do not utilize the data generated by the judicial exception to affect any type of change. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A)(iv). Therefore, the claims do not utilize input device configured to receive sequence data, stored k-mer table and computer configured to extract target k-mer from sample sequence data loaded k-mer table and predicted structural variation and abstract ideas to construct a practical application such as treating a subject, transformation of matter, or improving upon an existing technology.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not meet any of the following criteria:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than
a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
2B Analysis - Consideration of Additional Elements and Significantly More
The claimed method also recites "additional elements" that are not limitations drawn to an abstract idea.
The recited additional element of data gathering (i.e., receiving) of claims 1 and 11 does not add significantly more to the recited judicial exception because receiving sequence data, that is subsequently analyzed by abstract ideas, is deem a well-known and conventional extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The recited additional element of receiving and inputting data of claim 1 does not add more than the recited judicial exception because receiving/inputting data of a table into a computer is deemed a well-known and conventional extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) regarding extra solution activity.
The recited additional element of using computers processes, components, and equipment of claims 1 and 11 does not add significantly more than the recited judicial exception because using computers to process, store, load, and extract sequence data that is subsequently analyzed by abstract ideas is well-known and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(b) and 2106.05(d). To provide evidence of conventionality of using computer elements, Greenfield et al. (Greenfield) discloses using computer elements [Greenfield, fig 1] and utilizing hash look-ups [Greenfield, claim 5] for processing k-mers [Greenfield, claim 1] (U.S Patent Pub No.: US 2015/0220684, Patent Pub Date: 06 August 2015).
The recited additional element of storing data of claims 1 and 11 does not add significantly more than the recited exception because storing sequence data that is subsequently analyzed by abstract idea is well-known and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
In conclusion and when viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea recited in the instantly presented claims into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant states the amended claims are drawn to a specific computer-implemented process, not an abstract idea. The Applicant states the claims are not the result of data analysis. The Applicant states the claims are drawn to constructing a hash table. The Applicant points to the elements of claim 1 and specification [32] for guidance. The Applicant states that claims manage k-mers ranging from 25-370 million [Spec 32] and human mental process cannot perform the claimed function [remarks, page 7 (a)].
In response, and as noted in Step 2A Prong I of the 101 analyses above, the constructing, performing a hash table look up, filtering data, mapping reads, and predicting reads on organizing data (e.g., constructing), performing a hash table look up (e.g., observing, comparing, searching a data table), mathematically organizing data (e.g., filtering), organizing data and performing mathematical computations (e.g., mapping), and observing and evaluating sequence mapping pattern and the breakpoint in the mapping results (e.g., predicting structural variation) which reads on abstract ideas.
Moreover, and with respect to the claims processing k-mers ranging from 25-370 million [Spec 32], it is noted the specification [32] does not provide evidence/support supporting processing 25-370 million k-mer [Spec 32]. The argument is not further persuasive because it is acknowledged that such computations (i.e., processing sequencing data) performed mentally, or with paper and pencil, would take considerable time and effort, but that is, of course, the singular purpose of computers and computer networks, to perform large numbers of calculations, via algorithms, rapidly, and without error (assuming no error in user input). Although a general-purpose computer can perform calculations at a rate and accuracy that can far outstrip the mental performance of a skilled artisan, the nature of the activity is essentially the same, and constitutes an abstract idea. See SiRF Tech: "In order for the addition of a machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of a claim, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly, i.e., through the utilization of a computer for performing calculations" and Bancorp: "the fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter. … Using a computer to accelerate an ineligible mental process does not make that process patent-eligible". Here, the computer elements are merely utilized for performing the claimed method in a computing environment and using computer elements as a tool for processing the abstract ideas. See MPEP The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) (1-3). As such, the claims are not deemed eligible subject matter under Step 2A Prong I of the 101 analyses.
Additionally, the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) states “In contrast, claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include: a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)” and “a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011)”. Here, the claimed analysis steps are generally recited and therefore further read on abstract ideas.
The Applicant states the claims reflect an improvement to computer technology in processing genomic sequence data. The Applicant points to McRo and Enfish for guidance [remarks, page 7-8 (b)]. The Applicant states like Enfish and McRO, the claims incorporate specific rules constructing a multi-race k-mer hash table. The Applicant points to figures 5 to 7 and states the claimed methods demonstrate better performance with an Fl-score of 0.78 at a sequencing depth of 10x, and 0.59 at tumor purity of 10%, substantially outperforming NOVOBREAK, LUMPY, Sv ABA, MANTA, and DELLY. The Applicant states the claimed computer improvement is the direct result of the specific technical mechanism of using multi-race hash table filtering to eliminate false positive signals from inter-racial SNP/INDEL noise - a problem that is structurally unsolvable by conventional single-reference-genome approaches [remarks, page 8].
In response, and with respect to claim 1 constructing step and wherein the data structure step, the construction step reads on abstract ideas for organizing information while performing a constant-time look-up reads on observing and comparing data (i.e., searching through data to filter data) and mathematically describing the look-up which also reads on abstract ideas. With respect to the F-score and Figures 5-7, the figures only disclose mutational sequence read coverage of 10x to 60x and tumor purity and do not disclose a specific F-score of 0.78 or 0.59 [ specification 0049 and 0051] for improving computer or an existing technology (i.e., genetic structural variation methods). It appears that the claims are drawn to an abstract idea that results in a computational process that is more efficient as compared to selected others known in the art (i.e., reducing data). However, the computer is not improved by way to the claimed process. As such and as described by the MPEP 2106.05(a)(II), for example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Therefore, even though there is a change in the FIscore, it is insufficient to show an improvement to structural genetic variation detection and show an improvement a computer or computer technology. Thus, the claim(s) must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology.
The Applicant states the additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The Applicant states the constructing and look-up steps are concrete additional elements that integrate the recite judicial exception into a practical application [remarks, page 8 (c)]. The Applicant points to the MPEP 2106.05(a) for guidance. The Application states by solving a specific technical problem (false positives caused by inter-racial sequence differences) through a specific technical means (purpose-built multi-race k-mer hash table). The Applicant states the claims are as whole directed to a specific improvement of a technological processes [remarks, page 8-9].
In response, the claims, in view of the specification, do not set forth evidence that the claimed process causes a computer to operate differently than it ordinarily would such using Big O notation, for example. Thus, the computer is not improved by way to the claimed process. Additionally, using hash function/hash tables is just converting genetic sequence data into another form (i.e. hashes/hash table). For example, using hash function to convert data into numerical values to form a data structure is merely taking known data (i.e., genetic structural data/nucleic data), manipulating the data via mathematical functions (i.e., hash functions), and organizing the data into a new form (i.e., table or data structure) which reads on abstract ideas. See 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A)(iv). As such and as described by the MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)(v), the claims are mere drawn to gathering and analyzing information (i.e., nucleic acid sequence data) using conventional data processing techniques/methods (i.e., computer elements and data inputting and receiving nucleic acid sequence data) and displaying the results (i.e., hash tables/tables (i.e., tables for displaying predicted structural variation of races) which is in sufficient to show an improvement to technology and/or integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 7, 9, 11, and 15 are rejected.
No claims are allowed.
Finality
This Office action is a Non-Final action. A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C PULLIAM whose telephone number is (571)272-8696. The examiner can normally be reached 0730-1700 M-F.
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, Karlheinz Skowronek can be reached at (571) 272-9047. 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.
/J.C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 1687
/Anna Skibinsky/
Primary Examiner, AU 1635
Prosecution Insights