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 .
This is responsive to amendment filed on 11/17/25. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 14 and 17 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Although claims 1-20 fall under at least one of the four statutory categories, it should be determined whether the claim wholly embraces a judicially recognized exception, which includes laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas, or is it a particular practical application of a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106 I and II).
Claims 1-20 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Part I: Step 2A, Prong One: Identify the Abstract Idea
Under step 2A, Prong One of the Alice framework, the claims are analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). The determination consists of a) identifying the specific limitations in the claim that recite an abstract idea; and b) determining whether the identified limitations fall within at least one of the three subject matter groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity). See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“PEG” 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. No. 4, 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
The identified limitations of independent claims 1, 14, 17 recite:
As to claim 1, A device comprising a processor configured to:
(a) determine, based on predefined preferences associated with shared resources, a set of policies to guide an autonomous system in determining a set of configuration parameters for sharing the shared resources;
(b) provide the set of policies to the autonomous system; and
(c) control the autonomous system to determine. based on the set of policies, the set of configuration parameters and to configure the shared resources according to the set of configuration parameters.
The claim limitations fall within the Mental concepts – preforming by a human (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I) groupings of abstract ideas. The performance of the claim limitations using generic computing components does not preclude the claim limitations from being in the certain Mental concepts – preforming by a human concept grouping. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the “determining and control” encompasses mental processes practically performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. Thus, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception.
Part I: Step 2A, prong two: additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Under step 2A, Prong Two of the Alice framework, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the claims are evaluated to determine if there are additional elements or a combination of elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claims are more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (PEG 2019, Pg. 54).
As a whole, the additional elements of claims 1, 14, 17 recite:
A device comprising a processor configured to:
(b) provide the set of policies to the autonomous system; and
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally mere data gathering, and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. The generic computing elements in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Since these claims are directed to an abstract idea, the Office must determine whether the remaining limitations “do significantly more” than describe the abstract idea.
Part II. Determine whether any Element, or Combination, Amounts to“Significantly More” than the Abstract Idea itself
Under Part II, the steps of the claimed invention, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not improve another technology or technical field, do not improve the As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements. The additional element of “device…processor….circuit…non-transitory computer readable medium” in claims 1, 14 and 17 are at best mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Additional elements in limitation (b) were both found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering and outputting. However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). functioning of the computer itself, and are not enough to qualify as "significantly more". MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) states that “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)). Therefore, based on the two-part Mayo analysis, there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself. Claims 1-20, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional claims do no recite significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bearden et al. (US Patent 6,871,233 B1) , hereinafter “Bearden”.
As to claim 1, Bearden disclose a device (Bearden, fig. 3) comprising a processor configured to (Bearden, col. 4, ll. 26–31; FIG. 3):
determine, based on predefined preferences associated with shared resources, a set of policies to guide an system in determining a set of configuration parameters for sharing the shared resources (a system administrator specifies predefined types of service-level QoS goals (the claimed “predefined preferences”), each goal being defined by a client, a service, and a QoS expression, For each specified goal G, “a policy is automatically selected such that the effect of executing P(G) is to enforce goal G, The claimed “shared resources” correspond to the configurable QoS-enabled network elements 307 — including network routers, switches, traffic shapers, and load balancers — which are shared among clients and services, The selected policy logic guides determination of configuration parameters, such as packet priority settings, for sharing those resources) (Bearden, col. 2, ll. 52–61, col. 4, ll. 42–67; FIGs. 1-2, TABLEs 1-2);
provide the set of policies to the system ((system outputs are … “(1) policy rules consumed by rule-based PBM software, (2) control Signals Sent to network elements and resources to affect the client’s QoS, the selected policy logic P(G) is instantiated and enforced “at each network element E that switches packets sent to/from C, and the enforcement processes run “concurrently and continuously) (Bearden, col. 3, ll. 25–30; col. 4, ll 50-59; col. 5, ll 1-8; FIGs. 1-2, TABLEs 1-2); and
control the system to determine. based on the set of policies, the set of configuration parameters and to configure the shared resources according to the set of configuration parameters (automatic enforcement of the QoS goals through execution of the policy logic, including determining and executing a set of actions to increase or reduce network resources (e.g., adjusting priority[C][S], setting P.priority, and controlling buffer space or reserved bandwidth at a router) and thereby configuring the shared network elements (Bearden, col. 2, ll. 47–52, col. 5, l. 44 – col. 6, l. 24; FIG. 2, TABLE 2, lines 3, 9; FIG. 4, steps 417–418).
However, Bearden doesn’t explicitly disclose autonomous system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to discloses autonomous system (automatic enforcement, enforcement is performed automatically and continuously without the administrator specifying the low-level logic ) (Bearden, Abstract, col. 2, ll. 47–52; col. 5, ll. 1–8). This would process the policy goal-action automatically enforces the specified quality of service goal by executing the prescribed actions, without a system administrator having to specify the prescribed actions to the policy goal-logic.
As to claim 2, Bearden discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to provide to the autonomous system a supervision rule associated with the predefined preferences (wherein the goal specifically includes conditional statements as expressions (e.g., rules) to achieve the goal (Bearden col. 3 ll 8 – 31)), wherein the supervision rule defines a mitigation strategy for the autonomous system to resolve a conflict between the predefined preferences (determining when to prioritize certain network traffic based upon the conditional statement (thereby allocating resources to the prioritized client’s traffic and maintaining quality in the conflict of “delayed transactions”) (Bearden col. 3 ll 8 – 31)) or to determine an efficiency trade-off between the predefined preferences.
As to claim 3, Bearden discloses the device of claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to: analyze the supervision rule or the predefined preferences in order to determine an impact of the supervision rule or the predefined preferences on configuring the shared resources (policy is selected based upon its effects according to the available network resources (Bearden col. 3 ll 60 – col. 4 ll 5)); and generate a warning if the impact satisfies a warning criterion (“Easily reporting and Verifying the effectiveness of policy based management for achieving these goals” (Bearden col. 4 ll 6 – 15)).
As to claim 4, Bearden discloses the device of claim 3, wherein the processor is configured to determine the impact based on a predicted operational environment that includes a planned deployment to the shared resources, wherein the impact comprises a conflicting configuration for the shared resources in the predicted environment for the shared resources (The process is started in step 401. At run time, a system administrator or the like employing user interface 302 defines a service level QoS goal by selecting a client from 309-1 through 309-Y, an application from service servers 308-1 through 308-X, and a QoS expression. Stated another way, user interface 302 allows the system administrator to specify goal parameters for an objective "H" and choose when attempted enforcement of "H" should begin. At that time management server 301 parameterizes and instantiates P(G) for each goal G that is part of objective H, such that the policy logic of P is appropriate for enforcing goal G. For example, the policy logic described in simplified form in FIG. 2 could be selected to enforce a goal of the form given in FIG. 1. Thereafter, in this example, three processes run concurrently in management server 301. Specifically, a first sub-process includes maintaining the goal repository 304, a second sub-process maintains the monitored state repository 305 and a third sub-process effects the QoS management of defined goals. Again, these three sub-processes, once started, run concurrently and continuously) (Bearden col. 4 ll 55 – 66)).
As to claim 5, Bearden discloses the device of claim 2, wherein the efficiency trade-off comprises an optimization of the predefined preferences for achieving a predefined behavior metric associated with a usage context of the shared resources (determining when to prioritize certain network traffic based upon the conditional statement (thereby allocating resources to the prioritized client’s traffic and maintaining quality in the conflict of “delayed transactions”) (Bearden col. 3 ll 8 – 31)).
As to claim 6, Bearden discloses the device of claim 3, wherein the processor is further configured to determine the impact based on whether a trigger occurs (e.g., YES or NO result in determining policy effectiveness (Bearden col. 5 ll 45 – col. 6 ll 24).
As to claim 7, Bearden discloses the device of claim 6, wherein the trigger comprises at least one of a time-based interval, a random interval, a user input, and a triggering event, wherein the processor is further configured to (“whether the delivered QoS exceeds the selected QoS goal” for example (Bearden col. 6 ll 1 – 8).
As to claim 8, Bearden discloses the device of claim 3, wherein the impact comprises an assessment of an impact area of the supervision rule or of the predefined preferences (“each goal G in Some objective H Specified, a policy is automatically Selected Such that the effect of executing P(G) is to enforce goal G to the extent that is feasible given the available networked resources” wherein an “area” is an area of interest, e.g., specific quality goals (Bearden col. 3 ll 60 – 67)).
As to claim 9, Bearden discloses the device of claim 8, wherein the impact area comprises at least one of a latency (e.g., transaction delay (Bearden col. 3 ll 7 – 30, 40 – 59)), a jitter, a throughput, a scalability, an availability, a safety, a predictability, a trustworthiness, a riskiness, a privacy level, a confidentiality, a power consumption, a carbon footprint, and an amount of green house gas generation if operating the shared resources with the supervision rule or the predefined preferences.
As to claim 10, Bearden discloses the device of claim 1, the device further comprising a memory configured to store at least one of the predefined preferences, the set of policies, and the set of configuration parameters (goal repository comprises the QoS goals, results of the monitoring and analysis, state changes, and QoS objectives (Bearden col. 2 ll 8 – 17, col. 3 ll 60 – 66, ).
As to claim 11, Bearden discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the policy comprises a utility function of operational attributes related to the predefined preferences, wherein the utility function comprises for each respective operational attribute of the operational attributes a respective weight defining an importance of the respective operational attribute (wherein a goal may be associated with a respective priority (e.g., weight, coefficient) of resources based upon the procedural expressions (Bearden col. 3 ll 7 – 31).
As to claim 12, Bearden discloses the device of claim 11, wherein at least one of the operational attributes comprise at least one of a capacity, a cost, a predicted service level objective (expected quality of network traffic, for example (Bearden col. 3 ll 7 – 31), a target service level objective, a priority, and a headroom of the shared resources.
As to claim 13, Bearden discloses the device of claim 11, wherein the processor is configured to determine the predicted service level objective based on a machine learning model of historical information associated with achieving different service level objectives in a predetermined operational context of the shared resources (The process is started in step 401. At run time, a system administrator or the like employing user interface 302 defines a service level QoS goal by selecting a client from 309-1 through 309-Y, an application from service servers 308-1 through 308-X, and a QoS expression. Stated another way, user interface 302 allows the system administrator to specify goal parameters for an objective "H" and choose when attempted enforcement of "H" should begin. At that time management server 301 parameterizes and instantiates P(G) for each goal G that is part of objective H, such that the policy logic of P is appropriate for enforcing goal G. For example, the policy logic described in simplified form in FIG. 2 could be selected to enforce a goal of the form given in FIG. 1. Thereafter, in this example, three processes run concurrently in management server 301. Specifically, a first sub-process includes maintaining the goal repository 304, a second sub-process maintains the monitored state repository 305 and a third sub-process effects the QoS management of defined goals. Again, these three sub-processes, once started, run concurrently and continuously) (Bearden col. 4 ll 55 – 66)).
Claim 14 list all the same elements of claim 1 but in a management system for managing a set of configuration parameters of shared resources (Bearden col. 4 ll 55 – 66)) to carry out the steps of rather than device form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 14.
As to claim 15, Bearden disclose the management system of claim 14 (Bearden col. 4 ll 55 – 66)), the management system further comprising:
a display circuit configured to provide the set of policies as a recommended set of policies to a user (sending notifications to an administrative interface, including suggested manual network provisioning actions (Bearden col. 3 ll 55 – 59)); and
a modification circuit configured to modify the set of policies to an alternative set of policies if an input from the user indicates that the recommended set of policies should be modified to the alternative set of policies (administrator may specific the implementation to be selected (Bearden col. 3 ll 55 – col. 4 ll 25)).
As to claim 16, Bearden disclose the management system of claim 14, wherein the group of shared resources comprises at least one of processing infrastructure, data storage infrastructure, and networking infrastructure (Bearden col. 6 ll 1 – 13).
Claim 17 list all the same elements of claim 1 but in a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions, which if executed, cause one or more processors (Bearden col. 4 ll 55 – 66, figs. 3)) to carry out the steps of rather than device form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 17.
As to claim 18, Bearden disclose the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 17, wherein the predefined preferences comprise service level objectives of a consumer of the shared resources or a supplier of the shared resources (QoS goals as part of a network management objective for a consumer (Bearden col. 4 ll 6 – 53)).
As to claim 19, Bearden disclose the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 18, wherein the consumer comprises a service owner that provides access to a portion of the shared resources to end customers (application/service client with specific quality requirements (Bearden col. 1 ll 18 – 40 and col. 2 ll 31 – 60)).
As to claim 20, Bearden disclose the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 18, wherein the supplier comprises a resource owner of a portion of the shared resources (e.g., service provider (Bearden col. 4 ll 19 – 25)).
Response to Arguments
(A) Applicant argues "... The set of policies are provided to the autonomous system, which is controlled to: (1) determine, based on the set of policies, a set of configuration parameters and (2) configure the shared resources according to the set of configuration parameters. Neither Bearden nor Gangur, alone or in combination ” (from remarks pages 7-9).
As to point (A), Examiner respectfully disagrees, in the manner of applicants specification, Bearden disclose determine, based on predefined preferences associated with shared resources, a set of policies to guide an system in determining a set of configuration parameters for sharing the shared resources (a system administrator specifies predefined types of service-level QoS goals (the claimed “predefined preferences”), each goal being defined by a client, a service, and a QoS expression, For each specified goal G, “a policy is automatically selected such that the effect of executing P(G) is to enforce goal G, The claimed “shared resources” correspond to the configurable QoS-enabled network elements 307 — including network routers, switches, traffic shapers, and load balancers — which are shared among clients and services, The selected policy logic guides determination of configuration parameters, such as packet priority settings, for sharing those resources) (Bearden, col. 2, ll. 52–61, col. 4, ll. 42–67; FIGs. 1-2, TABLEs 1-2);
provide the set of policies to the system ((system outputs are … “(1) policy rules consumed by rule-based PBM software, (2) control Signals Sent to network elements and resources to affect the client’s QoS, the selected policy logic P(G) is instantiated and enforced “at each network element E that switches packets sent to/from C, and the enforcement processes run “concurrently and continuously) (Bearden, col. 3, ll. 25–30; col. 4, ll 50-59; col. 5, ll 1-8; FIGs. 1-2, TABLEs 1-2); and
control the system to determine. based on the set of policies, the set of configuration parameters and to configure the shared resources according to the set of configuration parameters (automatic enforcement of the QoS goals through execution of the policy logic, including determining and executing a set of actions to increase or reduce network resources (e.g., adjusting priority[C][S], setting P.priority, and controlling buffer space or reserved bandwidth at a router) and thereby configuring the shared network elements (Bearden, col. 2, ll. 47–52, col. 5, l. 44 – col. 6, l. 24; FIG. 2, TABLE 2, lines 3, 9; FIG. 4, steps 417–418).
However, Bearden doesn’t explicitly disclose autonomous system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to discloses autonomous system (automatic enforcement, enforcement is performed automatically and continuously without the administrator specifying the low-level logic ) (Bearden, Abstract, col. 2, ll. 47–52; col. 5, ll. 1–8). This would process the policy goal-action automatically enforces the specified quality of service goal by executing the prescribed actions, without a system administrator having to specify the prescribed actions to the policy goal-logic.
(B) Applicant argues " Applicant has amended claim 4 to recite further aspects of the supervision and impact determination, where the processor is further configured to determine the impact based on a planned environment that includes a planned deployment to the shared resources. Support for this amendment may be found in, for example, paragraph [0044]. None of the cited art teaches, discloses, or suggests preplanning a deployment in a predicted environment to assess the impact.
For this additional reason, claim 4 is novel and non-obvious over the cited art..” (from remarks page 9).
As to point (B), Examiner respectfully disagrees, in the manner of applicants specification, Bearden disclose wherein the processor is configured to determine the impact based on a predicted operational environment that includes a planned deployment to the shared resources, wherein the impact comprises a conflicting configuration for the shared resources in the predicted environment for the shared resources (The process is started in step 401. At run time, a system administrator or the like employing user interface 302 defines a service level QoS goal by selecting a client from 309-1 through 309-Y, an application from service servers 308-1 through 308-X, and a QoS expression. Stated another way, user interface 302 allows the system administrator to specify goal parameters for an objective "H" and choose when attempted enforcement of "H" should begin. At that time management server 301 parameterizes and instantiates P(G) for each goal G that is part of objective H, such that the policy logic of P is appropriate for enforcing goal G. For example, the policy logic described in simplified form in FIG. 2 could be selected to enforce a goal of the form given in FIG. 1. Thereafter, in this example, three processes run concurrently in management server 301. Specifically, a first sub-process includes maintaining the goal repository 304, a second sub-process maintains the monitored state repository 305 and a third sub-process effects the QoS management of defined goals. Again, these three sub-processes, once started, run concurrently and continuously) (Bearden col. 4 ll 55 – 66)).
(C) Applicant argues "... In particular, the Office asserts the claims recite a mental process that may be performed solely in the human mind. Id. Applicant disagrees but has nevertheless amended each of the independent claims to recite controlling the autonomous vehicle to determine, based on the set of policies, the set of configuration parameters and to configure the shared resources according to the set of configuration parameters. This adds a concrete control step, which means the claims as a whole cannot be practically performed in the human mind and provides a specific practical application. As such, the claims do not merely recite a mental process and instead provide a concrete and practical application that cannot be performed solely in the human mind. Applicant respectfully submits that the amended claims are patent eligible and the rejections under § 101 may be withdrawn. ” (from remarks page 7).
As to point (C), Examiner respectfully disagrees, see above 101 rejection since the control step does not clearly clarify how the control is controlling the autonomous vehicle. In light of claim amendment the control step is to determine the configuration parameters only, there is not active step of controlling.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Maes (US 2010/0058436 A1) disclose systems and methods for providing service level, policy-based QoS enforcement on a network or networks. According to one embodiment, a system can comprise at least one communications network, a first endpoint communicatively coupled with the communications network, and a second endpoint communicatively coupled with the communications network and can monitor traffic on the communications network between the first endpoint and the second endpoint. A policy enforcer can be communicatively coupled with the network monitor. The policy enforcer can apply one or more policies based the traffic between the first endpoint and the second endpoint. The one or more policies can define a Quality of Service (QoS) for the traffic between the first endpoint and the second endpoint and can apply the policies to affect the traffic between the endpoints to maintain the QoS defined by the one or more policies.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HITESH R PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-5442. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm.
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, James Trammell can be reached at 571-272-6712. 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.
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
9/10/26
Prosecution Insights