DETAILED ACTION
This is a Final Application in response to the amendment filed 09/03/2025.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 09/03/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant submits that the claims integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the present claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application in a matter that imposes meaningful limit to the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9-11, 14-20 are currently pending in the application and have been examined.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, 9-11, 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9-11, 14-20, the independent claims (claims 1, 15 and 20) are directed, in part, to a method and a device for managing tasks. Step 1 – First pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance, claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9-11, 14-19 are directed to a method comprising a series of steps which falls under the statutory category of a process and claim 20 is directed to a device which falls under the statutory category of a machine. However, these claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a mental process which includes observations or evaluations.
As per Step 2A - Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed, in part, to receiving… information about a task of application, the task associated with a project; receiving… information about one or more other tasks of the application including any other tasks that have been completed and other tasks that have not been completed; calculating… a start date and an expected effort for the task based on analysis of the information received for the task and the one or more other tasks; wherein calculating the start date includes: calculating similarity scores between the task and one of the other tasks that have not been completed using the information received about the task and the other tasks that have not been completed: identifying a task from among the other tasks that have not been completed having a highest one of the calculated similarity scores: and determining the start date of the task based on an end date of the task from among the other tasks that have not been completed having the highest one of the calculated similarity scores: calculating. by the computing device, an expected effort for the task based on analysis of the information received for the task and the other tasks that have been completed, wherein calculating the expected effort includes: identifying ones of the other tasks that have been completed that are similar to the task based on comparing the information received about the task and the other tasks that have been completed; separating the ones of the tasks that have been completed that are similar to the task into first similar tasks that are assigned to the user to whom the task is also assigned and second similar tasks that are assigned to users other than the user to whom the task is assigned; calculating an average of actual effort expended on the first similar tasks; calculating a weighted average of actual effort expended on the second similar tasks, wherein calculating the weighted average includes, for ones of the second similar tasks, determining a weight based on a difference in level of the user to whom the one of the second similar tasks is assigned and the user to whom the task is assigned; and calculating the expected effort for the task based on the average of actual effort expended on the first similar tasks and the weighted average of actual effort expended on the second similar tasks; and causing… an update within the application to apply the calculated start date and expected effort to the task. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers an observation or evaluation, then it falls under the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per Step 2A - Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements: computing device, a processor; and a non-volatile memory. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing a generic computer function of receiving and storing data) such that these elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Examiner looks to Applicant’s specification in at least figures 1 and 2 and related text and [0040-0041] to understand that the invention may be implemented in a generic environment that:
“Referring now to FIG. 1, shown is an example network environment 101 of computing devices in which various aspects of the disclosure may be implemented, in accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure. As shown, environment 101 includes one or more client machines 102A-102N, one or more remote machines 106A-106N, one or more networks 104, 104’, and one or more appliances 108 installed within environment 101. Client machines 102A-102N communicate with remote machines 106A-106N via networks 104, 104’. In some embodiments, client machines 102A-102N communicate with remote machines 106A-106N via an intermediary appliance 108. The illustrated appliance 108 is positioned between networks 104, 104’ and may also be referred to as a network interface or gateway. In some embodiments, appliance 108 may operate as an application delivery controller (ADC) to provide clients with access to business applications and other data deployed in a datacenter, a cloud computing environment, or delivered as Software as a Service (SaaS) across a range of client devices, and/or provide other functionality such as load balancing, etc. In some embodiments, multiple appliances 108 may be used, and appliance(s) 108 may be deployed as part of network 104 and/or 104’. Client machines 102A-102N may be generally referred to as client machines 102, local machines 102, clients 102, client nodes 102, client computers 102, client devices 102, computing devices 102, endpoints 102, or endpoint nodes 102. Remote machines 106A-106N may be generally referred to as servers 106 or a server farm 106. In some embodiments, a client device 102 may have the capacity to function as both a client node seeking access to resources provided by server 106 and as a server 106 providing access to hosted resources for other client devices 102A-102N. Networks 104, 104’ may be generally referred to as a network 104. Networks 104 may be configured in any combination of wired and wireless networks. Server 106 may be any server type such as, for example: a file server; an application server; a web server; a proxy server; an appliance; a network appliance; a gateway; an application gateway; a gateway server; a virtualization server; a deployment server; a Secure Sockets Layer Virtual Private Network (SSL VPN) server; a firewall; a web server; a server executing an active directory; a cloud server; or a server executing an application acceleration program that provides firewall functionality, application functionality, or load balancing functionality. Server 106 may execute, operate or otherwise provide an application that may be any one of the following: software; a program; executable instructions; a virtual machine; a hypervisor; a web browser; a web-based client; a client-server application; a thin-client computing client; an ActiveX control; a Java applet; software related to voice over internet protocol (VoIP) communications like a soft IP telephone; an application for streaming video and/or audio; an application for facilitating real-time-data communications; a HTTP client; a FTP client; an Oscar client; a Telnet client; or any other set of executable instructions. In some embodiments, server 106 may execute a remote presentation services program or other program that uses a thin-client or a remote-display protocol to capture display output generated by an application executing on server 106 and transmit the application display output to client device 102. In yet other embodiments, server 106 may execute a virtual machine providing, to a user of client device 102, access to a computing environment. Client device 102 may be a virtual machine. The virtual machine may be managed by, for example, a hypervisor, a virtual machine manager (VMM), or any other hardware virtualization technique within server 106. In some embodiments, network 104 may be: a local-area network (LAN); a metropolitan area network (MAN); a wide area network (WAN); a primary public network; and a primary private network. Additional embodiments may include a network 104 of mobile telephone networks that use various protocols to communicate among mobile devices. For short range communications within a wireless local-area network (WLAN), the protocols may include 802.11, Bluetooth, and Near Field Communication (NFC). FIG. 2 is a block diagram illustrating selective components of an example computing device 100 in which various aspects of the disclosure may be implemented, in accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure. For instance, client devices 102, appliances 108, and/or servers 106 of FIG. 1 can be substantially similar to computing device 100. As shown, computing device 100 includes one or more processors 103, a volatile memory 122 (e.g., random access memory (RAM)), a non-volatile memory 128, a user interface (UI) 123, one or more communications interfaces 118, and a communications bus 150. Non-volatile memory 128 may include: one or more hard disk drives (HDDs) or other magnetic or optical storage media; one or more solid state drives (SSDs), such as a flash drive or other solid-state storage media; one or more hybrid magnetic and solid-state drives; and/or one or more virtual storage volumes, such as a cloud storage, or a combination of such physical storage volumes and virtual storage volumes or arrays thereof.”
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
As per Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. When considered individually, these claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements and the invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above, appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a generic computer receives information from another generic computer, processes the information and then sends information back. In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. The fact that the generic computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility.
The dependent claims further refine the abstract idea. These claims do not provide a meaningful linking to the judicial exception. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above – such as by describing the nature and content of the data that is received/sent. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not significantly more than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, 9-11, 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2012/0215574 (hereinafter; Driessnack) in view of US Pub. No. 2017/0278038 (hereinafter; Wu)
Regarding claim 1, Driessnack discloses:
A method comprising: receiving, by a computing device, information about a task of an application, the task associated with a project; (Driessnack [0014] discloses receiving data for a project.) receiving, by the computing device, information about one or more other tasks of the application including any other tasks that have been completed and any other tasks that have not been completed; (Driessnack Table 4 discloses tasks completion status.) calculating, by the computing device, a start date and an expected effort for the task based on analysis of the information received for the task and the one or more other tasks; (Driessnack [0204] discloses calculating tasks start/finish dates as a percentage of effort.)
calculating, by the computing device, an expected effort for the task based on analysis of the information received for the task and the other tasks that have been completed, wherein calculating the expected effort includes; identifying ones of the other tasks that have been completed that are similar to the task based on comparing the information received about the task and the other tasks that have been completed, separating the ones of the tasks that have been completed that are similar to the task into first similar tasks that are assigned to the user to whom the task is also assigned and second similar tasks that are assigned to users other than the user to whom the task is assigned; (Driessnack See Tables 3-4.) calculating an average of actual effort expended on the first similar tasks; (Driessnack Table 3 discloses actuals. See also Tables 4 and 7.) calculating a weighted average of actual effort expended on the second similar tasks, wherein calculating the weighted average includes, for ones of the second similar tasks, determining a weight based on a difference in level of the user to whom the one of the second similar tasks is assigned and the user to whom the task is assigned; (Driessnack discloses weighted variances in at least [0533]; [0542].) and calculating the expected effort for the task based on the average of actual effort expended on the first similar tasks and the weighted average of actual effort expended on the second similar tasks; and causing, by the computing device, an update within the application to apply the calculated start date and expected effort to the task. (Driessnack Table 3 discloses future effort; [0299] discloses updating effort.)
Although Driessnack discloses task information including calculating start dates and expected effort, Driessnack does not specifically disclose similarity scores. However, Wu discloses the following limitations:
wherein calculating the start date includes, calculating similarity scores between the task and one of the other tasks that have not been completed using the information received about the task and the other tasks that have not been completed; identifying a task from among the other tasks that have not been completed having a highest one of the calculated similarity scores; and determining the start date of the task based on an end date of the task from among the other tasks that have not been completed having the highest one of the calculated similarity scores; (Wu [0038] discloses calculating and ranking similarity scores and high similarity scores.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for performance management of Driessnack with the resource recommendation system of Wu in order to provide recommendations based on similarity scores (Wu abstract) because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Regarding claim 2, Driessnack discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the information about the task and the other tasks is received from an agent running within the application. (Driessnack [0429] discloses PM using the information provided and inputs.)
Regarding claim 3, Driessnack discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the receiving of the information about the other tasks that have not been completed includes receiving information about tasks assigned to the same user as the task and associated with the same project as the task. (Driessnack discloses task assignments in at least Table 4.)
Regarding claim 5, Driessnack discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the information received about the task includes values of the task for a plurality of attributes, wherein the information received about the other tasks that have not been completed includes values of the ones of the other tasks that have not been completed for the plurality of attributes, and wherein calculating the similarity score between the task and one of the other tasks that have not been completed includes: for ones of the plurality of attributes, calculating discrete similarity scores between the task and the one of the other tasks that have not been completed using the corresponding attribute values received for the task and the one of the other tasks that has not been completed; and calculating the similarity scores as a weighted sum of the discrete similarity scores. (Driessnack discloses weighted variances in at least [0533]; [0542].)
Regarding claim 7, Driessnack discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the receiving of the information about other tasks that have been completed includes receiving information about other tasks that are associated with another project different from the project with which the task is associated. (Driessnack See Table 4; [0716].)
Regarding claim 9, Although Driessnack discloses task information including calculating start dates and expected effort, Driessnack does not specifically disclose keywords. However, Wu discloses the following limitations:
The method of claim 8, wherein the identifying of the ones of the other tasks that have been completed that are similar to the task includes: identifying keywords within the information received for the task; for ones of the other tasks that have been completed: identifying keywords within the information received for the one of the other tasks that have been completed; and calculating a similarity score between the task and the one of the other tasks that have been completed using the respective keywords. (Wu discloses keywords. See at least [0015]; [0038].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for performance management of Driessnack with the resource recommendation system of Wu in order to provide recommendations based on similarity scores (Wu abstract) because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Regarding claim 11, Although Driessnack discloses task information including calculating start dates and expected effort, Driessnack does not specifically disclose similarity scores or using a cosine measure. However, Wu discloses the following limitations:
The method of claim 9, wherein the calculating of the similarity score between the task and the one of the other tasks that have been completed using the respective keywords includes using a cosine similarity measure. (Wu [0042] discloses using a cosine model.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for performance management of Driessnack with the resource recommendation system of Wu in order to provide recommendations based on similarity scores (Wu abstract) because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Regarding claim 14, Although Driessnack discloses task information including calculating start dates and expected effort, Driessnack does not specifically disclose an update within the application. However, Wu discloses the following limitations:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: responsive to the calculating of the start date for the task, determining a modified start date for at least one of the one or more of the other tasks that have not been completed; and causing an update within the application to apply the modified start date to the at least one of the one or more of the other tasks that have not been completed within the application. (Wu [0037] discloses data updated over time as more data is generated.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for performance management of Driessnack with the resource recommendation system of Wu in order to provide recommendations based on similarity scores (Wu abstract) because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Regarding claim 15, Driessnack discloses:
A method comprising: detecting, by a computing device, creation of a task within an application, the task associated with a project; (Driessnack [0014] discloses receiving data for a project.) receiving, by the computing device, information about other tasks of the application including other tasks that have been completed and other tasks that have not been completed; (Driessnack Table 4 discloses tasks completion status.)
Although Driessnack discloses task information including calculating start dates and expected effort, Driessnack does not specifically disclose an update within the application. However, Wu discloses the following limitations:
receiving, by the computing device, a recommended start date and expected effort for the task using the information received for the task and the other tasks; and updating, by the computing device, the task within the application to apply the recommended start date and expected effort to the task. (Wu [0037] discloses data updated over time as more data is generated.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for performance management of Driessnack with the resource recommendation system of Wu in order to provide recommendations based on similarity scores (Wu abstract) because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Regarding claim 16, Driessnack discloses:
The method of claim 15, wherein the detecting of the creation of a task within an application includes detecting of the creation of the task includes detecting an input on a user interface (UI) control of the application. (Driessnack [0625] discloses a user interface.)
Regarding claim 17, Driessnack discloses:
The method of claim 15, wherein the updating of the task within the application includes update one or more UI controls of the application to display the calculated start date and expected effort. (Driessnack [0610] discloses a display interface.)
Regarding claim 18, Although Driessnack discloses task information including calculating start dates and expected effort, Driessnack does not specifically disclose an update within the application. However, Wu discloses the following limitations:
The method of claim 15, wherein the updating of the task within the application includes updating a database to store the calculated start date and expected effort for the task. (Wu [0037] discloses data updated over time as more data is generated.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for performance management of Driessnack with the resource recommendation system of Wu in order to provide recommendations based on similarity scores (Wu abstract) because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Regarding claim 19, Although Driessnack discloses task information including calculating start dates and expected effort, Driessnack does not specifically disclose an update within the application. However, Wu discloses the following limitations:
The method of claim 15, wherein the receiving of the recommended start date and expected effort for the task includes sending a request to another computing device, the request including information about the task and the information received about other tasks of the application. (Wu [0064-0065] disclose communication between multiple devices.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for performance management of Driessnack with the resource recommendation system of Wu in order to provide recommendations based on similarity scores (Wu abstract) because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned
Regarding claim 20, Driessnack discloses:
A computing device comprising: a processor; and a non-volatile memory storing computer program code that when executed on the processor causes the processor to execute a process comprising: receiving information about a task of application, the task associated with a project; (Driessnack [0014] discloses receiving data for a project.) receiving information about other tasks of the application including other tasks that have been completed and other tasks that have not been completed; (Driessnack Table 4 discloses tasks completion status.) calculating a start date and an expected effort for the task based on analysis of the information received for the task and the other tasks; (Driessnack [0204] discloses calculating tasks start/finish dates as a percentage of effort.)
Although Driessnack discloses task information including calculating start dates and expected effort, Driessnack does not specifically disclose an update within the application. However, Wu discloses the following limitations:
and causing an update within the application to apply the calculated start date and expected effort to the task. (Wu [0037] discloses data updated over time as more data is generated.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for performance management of Driessnack with the resource recommendation system of Wu in order to provide recommendations based on similarity scores (Wu abstract) because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Claim(s) 10, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Driessnack in view of Wu, further in view of US Pub. No. 2012/0158527 (hereinafter; Can).
Regarding claim 10, Although Driessnack discloses task information including calculating start dates and expected effort, Driessnack does not specifically disclose using a TF-IDF measure. However, Can discloses the following limitations:
The method of claim 9, wherein the identifying of the keywords within the information received and the identifying of the keywords within the information received for the ones of the other tasks that have been completed includes using a term frequency-inverse document frequency (TF-IDF) measure. (Can [0028] discloses keywords can be programmatically determined by looking at one or more of the item's title, description, or source page textual content, and identifying any words that exceed a minimum tf-idf (term frequency-inverse document frequency) score.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for performance management of Driessnack with the aggregation of content of Can in order to select highest scoring items in response to a query (Can abstract) because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 FRANCIS Z SANTIAGO-MERCED whose telephone number is (571)270-5562. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-4:30pm EST.
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, BRIAN EPSTEIN can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
/FRANCIS Z. SANTIAGO MERCED/Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights