DETAILED ACTION
The Office Action is sent in response to Applicant’s Communication received on 12/11/2025 for application number 17/747,778. The Office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following and placed of record in file: Applicant’s Arguments and Claim Amendment.
Examiner Notes the following: claims 1-3, 6, 8-9, 15, and 17-20 have been amended.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 18 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. In claim 18, has been amended to recite “…wherein energy consumption of deep learning clusters is minimized while maintaining an overall system performance within a predetermined threshold.”, the use of a “predetermined threshold” is not supported within the specification paragraphs of 15, 33, and 95. The specification recites an “acceptable threshold”, while unclear the bounds of such “acceptable threshold” (see Prior Office Action mailed 09/25/2025), it is a more generic version of the more specific predetermined threshold. For example, an acceptable threshold could be dynamic or predetermined. As such, the specification does not support “a predetermined threshold”.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under the Alice Framework Step 1, claims 1-18 recite a method and, therefore, is a process. Claim 19 recites a computing device and, therefore, is a machine. Claim 20 recites a non-transitory machine-readable medium and, therefore, is an article of manufacture.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 20 recites
A non-transitory machine-readable medium having tangibly stored thereon executable instructions for execution by one or more processors, wherein the executable instructions, in response to execution by the one or more
processors, cause the one or more processors to: receive a dataset comprising a first mixed integer linear program (MILP) sample and a predetermined number of other MILP samples of a MILP instance, the MILP instance being represented by a bipartite graph, wherein the bipartite graph consists of a group of variable nodes, a group of constraint nodes, and edges between nodes in the group of variable nodes and the group of constraint nodes, each MILP sample comprising a variable feature vector comprising variable features, a constraint feature vector comprising constraint features and an edge feature vector comprising edge features;
for each MILP sample in the dataset:
generate variable embeddings, constraint embeddings and edge embeddings for the variable features, constraint features and edge features, respectively;
update, by a first graph attention network (GAT) of a neural network, the constraint embeddings based on an attention of neighbouring nodes using the variable embeddings, constraint embeddings and edge embeddings; and
update, by a second GAT of the neural network, the variable embeddings based on an attention of neighbouring nodes using the variable embeddings, updated constraint embeddings and edge embeddings;
determine a temporal history of the variable features, the constraint features, and the edge features by generating, by a Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU) of the neural network, a representation vector based on the updated variable embeddings for an input sequence consisting of all MILP samples in the dataset;
select variables for the first MILP sample from the representation vector in accordance with a branching policy; And
output the selected variables or a label or classification determined based on the selected variables to an application environment.
The above underlined limitations are related to calculating and processing mixed integer linear program samples to solve mixed integer linear programs which amounts to mathematical calculations and relationships that falls under the “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of abstract ideas (see specification paragraphs 83-100 for the process, 62-82 for the math and relationships). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, the claim recites the following additional elements: “non-transitory machine-readable medium having tangibly stored thereon executable instruction”, “one or more processors”, “receive a dataset… and a predetermined number of other MILP samples”, “a first graph attention network (GAT) of a neural network”, “a second GAT”, “a Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU)”, and “output the selected variables or a label or classification determined based on the selected variables to an application environment”.
However, the additional elements of “non-transitory machine-readable medium having tangibly stored thereon executable instruction”, “one or more processors”, “a first graph attention network (GAT) of a neural network”, “a second GAT” and “a Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU)” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for storing instructions; as a generic computer component for executing instructions; and as a generic computer component for a known type of neural network for processing graph-structured data; and as a generic computer component for a known type of neural network for processing sequential data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The additional element of “receive a dataset… and a predetermined number of other MILP samples…” is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activities. “output the selected variables or a label or classification determined based on the selected variables to an application environment” is merely generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by respectfully limiting the output to an application environment. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim is not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2B, claim 20 does not include additional elements that individually or in combination, 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 elements of “non-transitory machine-readable medium having tangibly stored thereon executable instruction”, “one or more processors”, “a first graph attention network (GAT) of a neural network”, “a second GAT” and “a Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU)” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for storing instructions; as a generic computer component for executing instructions; and as a generic computer component for a known type of neural network for processing graph-structured data; and as a generic computer component for a known type of neural network for processing sequential data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The additional element of “receive a dataset… and a predetermined number of other MILP samples…” is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) which states that the courts have recognized computer functions such as “Storing and retrieving information in memory” as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. “output the selected variables or a label or classification determined based on the selected variables to an application environment” is merely generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by respectfully limiting the output to an application environment. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 19 is directed to claim 20. A mere change in statutory class is obvious. Claim 19 is rejected for the reasons in claim 20
Claim 1 is directed to claim 20. A mere change in statutory class is obvious. Claim 1 is rejected for the reasons in claim 20
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, Claims 2-18 recite further steps and details to calculating and processing mixed integer linear program samples to solve mixed integer linear programs which amounts to mathematical calculations and relationships and falls within the “mathematical Concepts” and/or “mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
For claims 2 and 3, recites the equations performed by the GATs to update their respective embeddings. In particular claims 2 and 3 does not include additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
For claim 4, is directed to using multiple GRUs to process the data. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, the claim recites the following additional element of a multi-layer GRU recurrent neural network (RNN). However, the additional element of a multi-layer GRU RNN is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for a known type of neural network for processing sequential data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim are not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that individually or in combination, 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 of a multi-layer GRU RNN is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for a known type of neural network for processing sequential data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
For claim 5, recites the equations performed by the GRU to generate the representation vector. In particular claim 5 does not include additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
For claim 6, recites the equation used to select data from the representation vector. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, the claim recites the following additional element of a multi-layer perceptron. However, the additional element of a multi-layer perceptron is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for a known type of neural network for solving various problems) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim are not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that individually or in combination, 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 of a multi-layer perceptron is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for a known type of neural network for solving various problems) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
For claim 7, talks about extracting features from the data samples. In particular claim 7 does not include additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
For claim 8, is directed to using information about an application environment to extract features from the data samples. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, the claim recites the following additional element of an application environment. However, the additional element of an application environment is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for setting up the data to be processed) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim are not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that individually or in combination, 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 of an application environment is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for setting up the data to be processed) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
For claim 9, is directed to various application environments to extract features from. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, the claim recites the following additional elements of “cellular networks,…, or artificial intelligence and/or cloud resource allocation”. However, the additional elements of “cellular networks,…, or artificial intelligence and/or cloud resource allocation” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for setting up the data to be processed) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim are not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that individually or in combination, 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 elements of “cellular networks,…, or artificial intelligence and/or cloud resource allocation” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for setting up the data to be processed) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
For claim 10, is directed to extracting the features using a solver application. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, the claim recites the following additional element of a solver application. However, the additional element of a solver application is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for extracting the data to be processed) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim are not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that individually or in combination, 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 of a solver application is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for extracting the data to be processed) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
For claim 11, it is directed to normalizing the features/dataset. In particular claim 11 does not include additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
For claim 12, it is directed to classifying or labeling the data. In particular claim 12 does not include additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
For claim 13, it is directed to outputting the data or labeling. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, claim 13 recites the following additional element of an external system for application. However, the additional element of an external system for application is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for storing or receiving data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim are not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2B, claim 13 does not include additional elements that individually or in combination, 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 of an external system for application is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for storing or receiving data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
For claim 14, it is directed to using the variables or labeling onto a system. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, claim 14 recites the following additional element of a system. However, the additional element of a system is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for applying/labeling data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim are not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2B, claim 14 does not include additional elements that individually or in combination, 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 of a system is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for processing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
For claim 15, it is directed to using the variables or labeling onto a system. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, claim 15 recites the following additional element of “a system associated with cellular networks…and/or cloud resource allocation”. However, the additional element of a system is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for applying/labeling data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim are not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2B, claim 15 does not include additional elements that individually or in combination, 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 of a system is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for applying/labeling data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
For claim 16, it is directed to using the variables or labeling onto a system. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, claim 16 recites the following additional element of “cellar network”. However, the additional element of cellar network is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for applying/labeling data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim are not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2B, claim 16 does not include additional elements that individually or in combination, 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 of cellar network is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for applying/labeling data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
For claim 17, it is directed to using the variables or labeling onto a system. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, claim 17 recites the following additional element of “telecommunication network”. However, the additional element of telecommunication network is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for applying/labeling data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim are not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2B, claim 17 does not include additional elements that individually or in combination, 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 of telecommunication network is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for applying/labeling data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
For claim 18, it is directed to using the variables or labeling onto a system. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, claim 18 recites the following additional element of “deep learning clusters”. However, the additional element of deep learning clusters is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for processing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim are not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2B, claim 18 does not include additional elements that individually or in combination, 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 of deep learning clusters is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for processing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to claim 17 is non-compliant with 37 CFR 1.121(c)(2) due to incorrect status identifier and not showing the deleted matter by strike-through (or double brackets). This issue has been waived for this amendment. Examiner notes that any future non-compliant amendment will result in a notice of non-compliant amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 9-10, filed 12/11/2025, with respect to specification and claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The specification and claim objections of the Office Action mailed 09/25/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 11, filed 12/11/2025, with respect to claim rejection under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn, however, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of 35 USC 112(a). See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 above.
Applicant's arguments, see page 10-18, filed 12/11/2025, with respect to Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. (Office Action mailed 09/25/2025, hereinafter Prior Office Action)
For pages 11-13, regarding applicant’s arguments directed to Step 2A (Prong 1):
The applicant points to “receiving a dataset comprising…” as part of the argument directed to Step 2A (Prong 1). However, this is not directed to the rejection as made. In the Prior Office Action, “receiving a dataset comprising…” does not recite an abstract idea, as the receiving itself is not the abstract idea, and the data is used in the subsequent math as an consequence of the abstract idea. See Prior Office Action p.6-7
The applicant argues the Prior Office Action does not consider the claimed features as a whole under Step 2A (Prong 1). However, the argument is not part of the analysis of whether or not the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A (Prong 1). See MPEP 2106.04.
The applicant argues the updates and generate limitations does not actually attempt to claim or monopolized actual mathematical concepts. However, the argument is directed to preemption which is not pertinent to the issue of whether the claims recite an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04.
For pages 14-17, regarding applicant’s arguments directed to Step 2A (Prong 2):
The applicant argues that the limitations involving for each MILP sample, generating, updating, determining, and outputting integrates into a practical application. See last paragraph of page 16. However, the limitations in question are directed to mathematical calculations and relationships. The abstract idea alone cannot provide the improvement. See MPEP 2106.05(a)
For pages 17-18, regarding applicant’s arguments directed to Step 2B:
Applicant argues the Prior Office Action’s arguments, directed to the limitations under mere instructions to apply, are not well-understood, routine, conventional. However, this is not directed to the rejection as made. The Prior Office Action for the limitations in question was rejected under Step 2B of mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kenny K. Bui whose telephone number is (571)270-0604. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am to 3:00 pm on Monday, 8:00 am to 4:00 pm on Tuesday to Friday 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, Andrew T Caldwell can be reached at (571)272-3702. 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.
/KENNY K. BUI/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2182 (571)270-0604.
/ANDREW CALDWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2182