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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 on 07/27/2026 has been entered.
Formal Matters
Applicant's response, filed 07/27/2026, has been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-18 and 21-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 1 and 15 have been amended.
Claims 19 and 20 have been canceled.
Claims 1-18 and 21-22 have been rejected.
Priority
The instant application claims the benefit of priority under 35 U.S.C 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. § 120, 121, or 365(c). Accordingly, the effective filing date for the instant application is 01 November 2019 claiming benefit to Provisional Application 62/930,364.
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 1-18 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories of Invention:
Claims 1-18 and 21-22 are drawn to a method, which is a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 1:
Independent claim 1 recites a method in part performing the steps of receiving a plurality of responses to a plurality of screening questions, wherein each screening question is associated with a symptomatic indicator of a plurality of symptomatic indicators, wherein receiving the plurality of responses comprises receiving answer-selection data for at least one screening question, the answer-selection data comprising an initial answer selection for the at least one screening question, a subsequent answer selection for the at least one screening question, and an elapsed time between the initial answer selection and the subsequent answer selection; determining, for each symptomatic indicator of the plurality of symptomatic indicators, based on one or more responses associated with the symptomatic indicator to each of the plurality of screening questions, a score, wherein determining the score comprises determining a self-reporting-anxiety adjustment based on the answer-selection data and adjusting the score based on the self-reporting-anxiety adjustment; receiving one or more signals representing one or more of symptoms of a user, activities of the user, diet of the user, or vital measurements of the user; and generating, based on the score for each symptomatic indicator of the plurality of symptomatic indicators and the one or more signals, a profile comprising (i) an exposure-area attribute derived from at least one of a military service record, an occupational-history record, or a regional-exposure record associated with the user and (ii) a possible diagnosis of a health issue related to a first symptomatic indicator of the plurality of symptomatic indicators; verifying, using a [model], the possible diagnosis of the health issue based on the score for each symptomatic indicator of the plurality of symptomatic indicators and the one or more signals determining, based on comparing the profile with a plurality of stored profiles, a target area comprising an exposure area in which users corresponding to profiles in a subset of the plurality of stored profiles worked, were stationed, or were otherwise exposed, wherein the profiles in the subset share a common exposure-area attribute derived from military-service, occupational-history, or regional-exposure information and indicate a statistically relevant occurrence of the first symptomatic indicator or the health issue; determining, using a [model], a reason for the statistically relevant occurrence in the target area based on commonalities among screening responses and exposure-area attributes associated with the profiles in the subset; determining, based on at least one score, for the first symptomatic indicator satisfying a threshold, an alert condition associated with the first symptomatic indicator; and sending a notification to a clinical device, wherein the notification comprises information indicating the reason for the statistically relevant occurrence, and wherein the notification causes the clinical device to schedule an appointment or send instructions associated with the first symptomatic indicator.
Independent claim 15 recites a method and independent claim 21 recites a system both in part performing the same abstract idea as independent claim 1.
These steps of independent claims 1, 15, and 21 amount to methods of organizing human activity which includes functions relating to interpersonal and intrapersonal activities, such as managing relationships or transactions between people, social activities, and human behavior (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) citing the abstract idea grouping for methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people similar to iii. a mental process that a neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions, In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 791-93, 215 USPQ 193, 194-96 (CCPA 1982) – also note MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II) stating certain activity between a person and a computer may fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping). Examiner notes that displaying and receiving data generally may be considered a part of the abstract idea. Examiner has not treated the technological hardware of a display or a user input device as a part of the abstract idea, the actions associated with displaying and selecting/receiving an input are considered a part of the abstract idea — “We have recognized that "information as such is an intangible" and that collecting, analyzing, and displaying that information, without more, is an abstract idea. Elec. Power Grp. , 830 F.3d at 1353-54 ; see also id. at 1355 (noting claim requirement of " ‘displaying concurrent visualization” of two or more types of information" was insufficient to confer patent eligibility) Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2018); see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I1)(C)).
Dependent claim 2 recites, in part, receiving a device identifier of the [user device] and a user identifier associated with the user; authenticating, based on the device identifier, the user device; and authenticating, based on the user identifier, the user.
Dependent claim 3 recites, in part, encrypting at least one of, a device identifier, a user identifier, or the score for each response of the plurality of responses.
Dependent claim 4 recites, in part, the method of claim 1 further comprising determining, based on at least one score for the symptomatic indicator of the plurality of symptomatic indicators, an alert condition for the user, wherein the alert condition comprises an indication that the user is at risk for an issue associated with the symptomatic indicator.
Dependent claim 5 recites, in part, wherein determining, based on the at least one score for the symptomatic indicator of the plurality of symptomatic indicators, the alert condition further comprises determining, based on the score satisfying a threshold, the alert condition.
Dependent claim 6 recites, in part, the method of claim 5, further comprising: determining a clinician associated with a type of the alert condition.
Dependent claim 12 recites, in part, wherein the plurality of screening questions are associated with two or more of occupational and regional exposure, military service history, somatic symptoms, physical injury, illness, pain, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, behavior, depression symptoms, and social interactions
Dependent claim 13 recites, in part, wherein determining, for each symptomatic indicator of the plurality of symptomatic indicators, based on the response to each of the plurality of screening questions, the score comprises: determining, based on the symptomatic indicator, a scale; and scaling, based on the scale, the response to each of the plurality of screening questions, wherein the scaled response represents the score.
Dependent claim 14 recites, in part, determining, for each of a plurality of user, a dataset comprising a score for each symptomatic indicator of the plurality of symptomatic indicators and one of, an indication of a possible diagnosis of a health issue related to the symptomatic indicator or an indication of no likely diagnosis of the health issue related to the symptomatic indicator; determining, based on the dataset, a training dataset.
Dependent claim 22 recites, in part, causing display of the target area.
Each of these steps of the preceding dependent claims only serve to further limit or specify the features of independent claims 1 and 21 accordingly, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as the independent claim and utilize the additional elements already analyzed in the expected manner.
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements within the claims only amount to instructions to implement the judicial exception using a computer [MPEP 2106.05(f)].
Claims 1, 7, 8, 15, 17, 18, and 21 recite a user device with an interface wherein the user device comprises one or more of, a mobile phone, a tablet computer, a laptop computer, or a desktop computer and the interface comprises one or more of an accelerometer, a pedometer, a geographical position sensing (GPC) module, an oximeter, or a tactile sensor with an application programming interface. The specification defines the user device with an interface wherein the user device comprises one or more of, a mobile phone, a tablet computer, a laptop computer, or a desktop computer and the interface comprises one or more of an accelerometer, a pedometer, a geographical position sensing (GPC) module, an oximeter, or a tactile sensor as any suitable means known to one of ordinary skill in the art (Detailed Description in ¶ 0013-15). The use of a user device serves as a tool to apply data to an algorithm and report the results (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case involving a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer within the “Other examples.. i.”) amounting to instruction to implement the abstract idea using a general purpose computer. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357 (2014).
Claim 21 recites a clinical device. The specification does not provide any specific hardware configuration for the clinical device. The use of a clinical device serves as a tool to apply data to an algorithm and report the results (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case involving a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer within the “Other examples.. i.”) amounting to instruction to implement the abstract idea using a general purpose computer. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357 (2014).
Claims 1, 15, and 21 recite storing a profile and/or storing in association with the profile, the target area and the reason for the statistically relevant occurrence. Claim 2 recites storing, based on authenticating the user device and the user, the profile. The use of a storing a profile only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer within the “Other examples.. v.”) AND serves as extra solution activities incidental to the primary process that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (MPEP § 2106.05(g) - insignificant pre/post-solution activity) and is therefore not a practical application of the recited judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites receiving, at the user device and from a user interface associated with the user device, one or more signals. Claim 15 recites receiving, via an interface of the user device, one or more signals. Claim 21 recites receive, via an interface, one or more signals. As established above, the user device is considered applying the abstract idea to a computer. Furthermore, the limitations are only recited as a tool which only serves to input data for use by the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(g) - insignificant pre/post-solution activity that amounts to mere data gathering to obtain input) and is therefore not a practical application of the recited judicial exception.
Claim 2 recites establishing a communication session between the user device and a computing device system. The use of a establishing a communication session between the user device and a computing device system only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer within the “Other examples.. v.”) AND serves as extra solution activities incidental to the primary process that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (MPEP § 2106.05(g) - insignificant pre/post-solution activity) and is therefore not a practical application of the recited judicial exception.
Claim 11 recites wherein presenting, via the user device, the plurality of screening questions comprises presenting the plurality of screening questions via an application running on the user device. Claim 16 recites causing display of the target area. The limitations are only recited as a tool which only serves as display/output of the data determined from the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(g) - insignificant pre/post-solution activity that amounts to post-solution output on a well-known display device) and is therefore not a practical application of the recited judicial exception.
Claim 6 recites sending a message associated with the alert condition to the clinician. Claim 9 recites sending, based on at least one score of a plurality of scores satisfying a threshold, a notification. Claim 10 recites sending, based on a signal of the one or more signals satisfying a threshold, a notification. The limitations are only recited as a tool which only serves as display/output of the data determined from the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(g) - insignificant pre/post-solution activity that amounts to post-solution output on a well-known display device) and is therefore not a practical application of the recited judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites verifying, using a machine learning model, the possible diagnosis of the health issue and determining, using a machine learning model, a reason for the statistically relevant occurrence. Claims 15 recites determining, using a machine learning model… a target area and determining, using a machine learning model, a reason for the statistically relevant occurrence. Claim 21 recites determining, using a machine learning model… a target area and determining, using a machine learning model, a reason for the statistically relevant occurrence. Claim 14 recites training, based on the training dataset, a machine learning module. The specification provides a list of possible generic model types that may be used and provides no details regarding the algorithm, stating “a machine learning approach such as discriminant analysis; decision tree; a nearest neighbor (NN) algorithm (e.g., k-NN models, replicator NN models, etc.); statistical algorithm (e.g., Bayesian networks, etc.); clustering algorithm (e.g., k-means, mean-shift, etc.); neural networks (e.g., reservoir networks, artificial neural networks, etc.); support vector machines (SVMs); logistic regression algorithms; linear regression algorithms; Markov models or chains; principal component analysis (PCA) (e.g., for linear models); multi-layer perceptron (MLP) ANNs (e.g., for non-linear models); replicating reservoir networks (e.g., for non-linear models, typically for time series); random forest classification; a combination thereof and/or the like” (Detailed Description in ¶ 0073). The use of a training, a machine learning module, in this case to determine a likelihood that another user will have a diagnosis of an issue related to the symptomatic indicator based on the score for the symptomatic indicator, only recites the training a machine learning module as a tool to apply data to an algorithm and report the results (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case involving a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer within the “Other examples.. i.”) amounting to instruction to implement the abstract idea using a general purpose computer. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357 (2014).
The above claims, as a whole, are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Additional Elements that Amount to Significantly More:
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to more than the abstract idea because the additional elements or combination of elements amount to no more than a recitation of instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 15, 17, and 18 recite a user device with an interface wherein the user device comprises one or more of, a mobile phone, a tablet computer, a laptop computer, or a desktop computer and the interface comprises one or more of an accelerometer, a pedometer, a geographical position sensing (GPC) module, an oximeter, or a tactile sensor with an application programming interface. Claim 21 recites a clinical device. Claim 1 recites verifying, using a machine learning model, the possible diagnosis of the health issue and determining, using a machine learning model, a reason for the statistically relevant occurrence. Claims 15 recites determining, using a machine learning model… a target area and determining, using a machine learning model, a reason for the statistically relevant occurrence. Claim 21 recites determining, using a machine learning model… a target area and determining, using a machine learning model, a reason for the statistically relevant occurrence. Claim 14 recites training, based on the training dataset, a machine learning module.
Each of these elements is only recited as a tool for performing steps of the abstract idea, such as the use of the storage mediums to store data, the computer and data processing devices to apply the algorithm, and the display device to display selected results of the algorithm. These additional elements therefore only amount to mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a computer and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2016.05(f) see for additional guidance on the “mere instructions to apply an exception”).
Each additional element under Step 2A, Prong 2 is analyzed in light of the specification’s explanation of the additional element’s structure. The claimed invention’s additional elements do not have sufficient structure in the specification to be considered a not well-understood, routine, and conventional use of generic computer components. Note that the specification can support the conventionality of generic computer components if “the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)” (Berkheimer in III. Impact on Examination Procedure, A. Formulating Rejections, 1. on p. 3).
Claims 1, 15, and 21 recite storing a profile and/or storing in association with the profile, the target area and the reason for the statistically relevant occurrence. Claim 2 recites storing, based on authenticating the user device and the user, the profile. The courts have decided that storing and retrieving information in memory as well-understood, routine, conventional activity as a computer function when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
Claim 1 recites receiving, at the user device and from a user interface associated with the user device, one or more signals. Claim 15 recites receiving, via an interface of the user device, one or more signals. Claim 21 recites receive, via an interface, one or more signals. The courts have decided that receiving or transmitting data over a network as well-understood, routine, conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) other types of activities example i. receiving or transmitting data over a network, OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network).
Claim 2 recites establishing a communication session between the user device and a computing device system. The courts have decided that receiving or transmitting data over a network as well-understood, routine, conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) other types of activities example i. receiving or transmitting data over a network, OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network).
Claim 11 recites wherein presenting, via the user device, the plurality of screening questions comprises presenting the plurality of screening questions via an application running on the user device. Claim 16 recites causing display of the target area. The courts have decided that presenting generated data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) other types of activities example iv. presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93).
Claim 6 recites sending a message associated with the alert condition to the clinician. Claim 9 recites sending, based on at least one score of a plurality of scores satisfying a threshold, a notification. Claim 10 recites sending, based on a signal of the one or more signals satisfying a threshold, a notification. The courts have decided that receiving or transmitting data over a network as well-understood, routine, conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) other types of activities example i. receiving or transmitting data over a network, OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
For the reasons stated, these claims fail the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and are consequently rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 1:
Applicant asserts that the claims recite “specific computerized symptom-analysis workflow involving answer-selection telemetry capture, self-reporting-anxiety score adjustment, exposure-area attribute derivation from military/occupational/regional exposure records, target-area determination from plural stored profiles, machine-learning-based reason determination, and API-triggered clinical-device action” which are not a method of organizing human activity. Examiner disagrees, collecting patient symptom data from generic computer devices, analyzing said data, and scheduling an appointment on a generic computer are all methods of organizing human activity similar to iii. a mental process that a neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions, In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 791-93, 215 USPQ 193, 194-96 (CCPA 1982). The use of a computer environment does not preclude a claim from reciting an abstract idea - MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality no. (iii) mere automation of manual processes.
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 2:
Applicant then asserts the claims amount to an improvement to technology of computerized health-screening and comprehensive symptom-analysis systems via more reliable computerized capture and use of symptom- screening data and exposure-area data, particularly where conventional patient-record entry and ordinary screening are subject to transcription or translation error, incomplete or incorrect information due to self-reporting anxiety, and undetected trends or commonalities among individuals affected by symptoms or physiological issues. Examiner disagrees. An improvement to the abstract ideas of capturing sensor screening data and analyzing said data does not amount to an improvement to technology or a technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)(III) stating “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. 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.”). There is no indication in the instant disclosure that the involvement of a computer with a user interface assists in improving the technology for the outlined problem statement. Here, the improvement is to abstraction of what is displayed, transmitted, and analysed not to the functioning of the devices themselves. The instant application and claim language fail to detail how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient.
Applicant asserts that the non-conventional approach of collecting the survey data and scheduling an appointment via a computer interface and an API is an improvement over the prior art. Examiner disagrees. Collecting data via a digital survey is not a unconventional technical solution nor is an API for communicating between application interfaces. While the abstraction of the content of the displays or the specific triggers for scheduling an appointment using an API may be unconventional – the test for an improvement to technology is an unconventional technical solution. There is no indication that the technology utilized – that is the additional elements outlined in Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B – is unconventional. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art (MPEP § 2106.05(a)).
Applicant states that the exposure-area limitations are not merely an improvement to "medical triage" in the abstract. The claim applies computer analysis to a specific data structure-plural stored profiles each containing an exposure-area attribute derived from military/occupational/regional exposure records-to identify an exposure area (target area) and a reason for a statistically relevant occurrence therein. This is a specific technological process for exposure-area correlation and reason determination that would otherwise go undetected. Examiner notes that determining a geographical area from collected data is an abstract idea and not a technical solution to a technical problem.
Applicant asserts that sending a notification via an API to a clinical device is not merely displaying a result or sending an informational message. The claim requires an API-based communication to a clinical device that causes the clinical device to perform a concrete clinical workflow action: scheduling an appointment or sending instructions. Examiner disagrees – Applicant has not solved a problem with the prior art in API technology, but merely utilized known technology in a traditional manner to solve a problem with the abstract idea.
Applicant asserts that the ordered combination integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner disagrees. The ordered combination is merely a network of devices communicating in a generic manner.
Step 2B – Additional Elements that Amount to Significantly More:
Applicant asserts that the ordered combination of answer-selection telemetry, self-reporting-anxiety adjustment, exposure-area attributes derived from military/occupational/regional exposure records, plural-profile exposure-area target detection, machine-learning-based reason determination, and API-triggered clinical-device action is not well-understood, routine, or conventional. Examiner disagrees. The claims merely recite a device for collecting data, analyzing said data utilizing embodiment of a machine learning model, and reporting the results to a second device via a generic application programming interface.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to 35 USC § 102/103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejection has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sierhuis (US Patent App No 20160180222) teaching on an API agent system for collecting wearable and environmental sensors and questionnaire data from personal agents to monitor and analyze the data and provide a response, such as a request to take a certain action in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0036-37 and ¶ 0065-67
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN LYNN JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-4:30PM 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, Arleen M Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/JORDAN L JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights