DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the following communications: Applicants’ Response filed on March 18, 2026. All references to this application refer to the U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0061690 A1.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this case. Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 11, 12, 14, 17, and 20 were amended. Claims 1, 11, and 20 are the independent claims. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Drawings
The replacement figure was received on March 18, 2026. The drawing is acceptable.
Specification
The objections to the disclosure, including those directed to improper trademark usage, are withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11, and 18-20 remain objected to because of the following informalities:
Each of claims 1, 11, and 18-20 contain at least one instance of “and/or” each instance should be amended to recite “or”
Applicants request withdrawal of the claim objections because the MPEP does not specifically bar claims from using limitations which contain “and/or.” See Response, page 6. Although the Examiner agrees that the MPEP does not expressly bar the use of such a phrase, the Examiner objected to its use in the present claims because raises a potential indefiniteness issue with regard to scope. Specifically, including the phrase “and/or” may result in scope interpretation of “and” in some instances, which alters the scope of the claim. For example, in the first limitation of claim 1, embedding NLP or user action capture differs in scope from embedding NLP and user action capture.
Accordingly, the Examiner requires amending the claims to clarify the scope of the claim by using “or” instead of “and/or.”
Appropriate corrections remain required.
Examiner’s Note
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.
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.
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. Applicants are 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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 9, 11-13, 16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0212663 A1, filed by Breedvelt-Schouten et al., on January 22, 2016, and published on July 27, 2017 (hereinafter Breedvelt-Schouten), in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0265528 A1, filed by Gruber et al., on September 30, 2011, and published on October 18, 2012 (hereinafter Gruber).
With respect to independent claim 1, Breedvelt-Schouten discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising:
Embedding natural language processing (NLP) and/or user action capture into a browser to monitor a user's intent when navigating web page(s) within the browser; Breedvelt-Schouten discloses embedding a user action capture into a web browser to monitor a user’s intent when navigating web pages within the browser (see Breedvelt-Schouten, paragraphs 0016 [browser monitors user actions with respect to dynamic content within a web page to track the users intended click target and mitigate against unintended clicks to non-intended targets due to content location shifts], 0045 [tracking logic tracks location (e.g., X and Y coordinates, width, height, etc.) of displayed elements, controls, and links within a web page], 0052 [user intention determination logic or action implementation logic stores the implemented action in memory], and 0056 [describing Fig. 5, in which a user attempts to click a particular element D, but due to insertion of a new element X, the contents shift downwards such that the pointer is now within the hit target zone of element C—based on the speed, acceleration, deceleration, time hovering, etc., determines user intent, if determined that intent is to click element D, a virtual hit target is generated under the mouse pointer to ensure the user makes the correct selection]).
Receiving an indication of a navigation to a first web page via the browser; Breedvelt-Schouten discloses receiving an indication of a navigation to a first web page (e.g., loading a web page) (see Breedvelt-Schouten, paragraphs 0016 and 0045, described supra).
Determining whether a first action attempted to be taken on the first web page matches the user's intent; Breedvelt-Schouten discloses determining whether a first action attempted to be taken by a user on the web page matches the user intent (see Breedvelt-Schouten, paragraphs 0045 and 0056, described supra).
Breedvelt-Schouten fails to expressly disclose wherein the determining whether the first action attempted to be taken by on the first web page matches the user’s intent includes creating contextual information about the user’s intent by leveraging NLP across applications, wherein the applications include a text message application and an email application.
However, Gruber teaches leveraging NPL techniques across a plurality of different applications, including text messaging applications and email applications, in order to generate contextual information used to infer user action intent (see Gruber, Figs. 1, 6, and 9; see also, Gruber, paragraphs 0020-0024 [generally describing the uses of contextual information and its applicability to increase accuracy of inferring user intent, including the use of NLP and task flow processing], 0128-0135 [describing examples of input data or information that can be used, including voice and text input, location information, time information, sensor data (accelerometers, gyroscopes, etc.), user interactions/history of user interactions with links, buttons, controls, objects, apps, etc., events from other apps, such as clocks, calendar events, trigger events, push notifications, etc.], 0171-0175 [initial description of how context is gathered and used, such as from a variety of sources, how the context information is gathered and organized, how context information supports task completion, how to acquire, access, and apply context information], 0180-0181 [application context refers to apps and app states, with each app providing the necessary app context information; text messaging and email apps are used as example sources for context information], 0189-0192 [describing examples of context information, including the identity of the app, current objects being operated on in the app, such as email, music, media content, calendar information, reminders, phone listing, text messaging conversations, locations, current web page/searches, social network profile, and identifiable entities or values that can be extracted from those objects], 0195-0202 [describing the contents of the user’s personal databases as sources for context information, such as address books, relationships between persons, calendar data, reminders, media library information, symbolic tags and labels, etc.], 0205-0216 [describing examples of context from dialog, such as people, places and things mentioned, time, app in use, such as email or calendar, task in focus, such as reading an email or creating a calendar entry, object in focus, such as an email just read, or calendar entry just created, state of a workflow, history of user actions/interactions, etc.], 0227-0236 [describing app history and user preferences used as context information, such as user collections of lists, calls made/received, text message conversations, map requests, websites visited and search queries made, alarms from clock apps, etc.], 0240-0249 [alert context information such as incoming text messages, emails, phone calls, reminders, calendar alerts, clocks and timers, push notifications, etc.], and 0262 [context can be provided from application domains, such as email, text messaging, phone, calendar, contacts, media, maps, weather, reminders, web browser, social media, etc.]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Breedvelt-Schouten and Gruber before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Breedvelt-Schouten to incorporate determining context information based on different applications as taught by Gruber, in order to prevent infer user intent. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because this decreases ambiguity and increases accuracy of inferring user intent by employing context information, as taught by Gruber (see Gruber, paragraph 0013 [“According to various embodiments of the present invention, a virtual assistant uses context information (also referred to herein as "context") to supplement natural language or gestural input from a user. This helps to clarify the user's intent and to reduce the number of candidate interpretations of the user's input, and reduces the need for the user to provide excessive clarification input. Context can include any available information that is usable by the assistant to supplement explicit user input to constrain an information-processing problem and/or to personalize results. For example, if input from the user includes a pronoun (such as "her" in the command "call her") the virtual assistant can use context to infer the referent of the pronoun, for example to ascertain the identity of the person to be called and/or the telephone number to use. Other uses of context are described herein.”]).
Breedvelt-Schouten, as modified by Gruber, further teaches the method in response to a determination that the first action attempted to be taken on the first web page does not match the user's intent, issuing an intent-based blocking action to prevent the first action on the first web page.
Breedvelt-Schouten further teaches issuing an intent-based blocking action to prevent the first action on the web page (see Breedvelt-Schouten, paragraph 0057 [describing Fig. 6, where the user is prevented from clicking the unintended element C by automatically moving the cursor from within the hit target of the unintended content into the intended content]).
With respect to dependent claim 2, Breedvelt-Schouten, as modified by Gruber, teaches the method of claim 1, as described above.
Breedvelt-Schouten further teaches the method wherein issuing the intent-based blocking action predictively prevents the first action from being taken on the first web page, wherein the intent-based blocking action is issued before the first action is taken.
Breedvelt-Schouten further teaches predictively preventing the first action from being taken on the first web page before the action is taken (see Breedvelt-Schouten, Figs. 5-6; see also, Breedvelt-Schouten, paragraphs 0056-0056, described supra, claim 1).
With respect to dependent claim 3, Breedvelt-Schouten, as modified by Gruber, teaches the method of claim 2, as described above.
Breedvelt-Schouten further teaches the method wherein issuing the intent-based blocking action includes modifying an underlying code of the first web page.
Breedvelt-Schouten further teaches the blocking action includes modifying an underlying code of the first web page (see Breedvelt-Schouten, Fig. 5; see also, Breedvelt-Schouten, paragraph 0056, described supra, claim 1).
With respect to dependent claim 6, Breedvelt-Schouten, as modified by Gruber, teaches the method of claim 1, as described above.
Breedvelt-Schouten further teaches the method wherein issuing the intent-based blocking action reactively prevents the first action from being taken on the first web page.
Breedvelt-Schouten further teaches where the blocking action reactively prevents the action from being taken (see Breedvelt-Schouten, Figs. 5-6; see also, Breedvelt-Schouten, paragraphs 0056-0056, described supra, claim 1).
With respect to dependent claim 9, Breedvelt-Schouten, as modified by Gruber, teaches the method of claim 1, as described above.
Breedvelt-Schouten further teaches the method as described above.
Wherein the first action is taken on the first web page by the user, Breedvelt-Schouten further teaches a first action is taken by a user on the web page (see Breedvelt-Schouten, paragraphs 0045 and 0056, described supra, claim 1).
Wherein the user is directed to a second web page as a result of the first action being taken on the first web page, Breedvelt-Schouten further teaches navigating to a second page based on the action (see Breedvelt-Schouten, paragraphs 0045 and 0056, described supra, claim 1).
And comprising:
Determining whether a second action attempted to be taken on the second web page matches the user's intent; Breedvelt-Schouten further teaches determining whether a new action attempted on the second page matches user intent (see Breedvelt-Schouten, paragraphs 0045 and 0056, described supra, claim 1).
Issuing a second intent-based blocking action to at least temporarily prevent the second action on the second web page; Breedvelt-Schouten further teaches issuing an intent-based blocking action to prevent the second action on the second web page from being performed (see Breedvelt-Schouten, paragraph 0057, described supra, claim 1).
Independent claim 11, and its respective dependent claims 12, 13, 16, and 18, recite a computer program product, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions readable and/or executable by a computer to cause the computer to perform the method of independent claim 1, and its respective dependent claims 2, 3, 6, and 9. Accordingly, independent claim 11, and its respective dependent claims 12, 13, 16, and 18, are rejected under the same rationales used to reject independent claim 1, and its respective dependent claims 2, 3, 6, and 9, which are incorporated herein.
Independent claim 20 recites a system, comprising: a processor; and logic integrated with the processor, executable by the processor, or integrated with and executable by the processor, the logic being configured to perform the method of independent claim 1. Accordingly, independent claim 20 is rejected under the same rationales used to reject independent claim 1, which are incorporated herein.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breedvelt-Schouten, in view of Gruber, further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0014149 A1, filed by Cleveland et al., on July 3, 2018, and published on January 10, 2019 (hereinafter Cleveland).
With respect to dependent claim 4, Breedvelt-Schouten, as modified by Gruber, teaches the method of claim 3, as described above.
Breedvelt-Schouten and Gruber fail to further teach the method wherein the first web page is set in a read-only state as a result of the modification to the underlying code of the first web page…
However, Cleveland discloses the security measure taken to prevent a user for taking a particular action by deactivating buttons, links, or other page functionality (see Cleveland, paragraph 0058 [the UI (e.g., browser) may deactivate buttons, or other functionality on the page to prevent the user from performing unintended actions]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Breedvelt-Schouten, Gruber, and Cleveland before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Breedvelt-Schouten, as modified by Gruber, to incorporate deactivating functionality as taught by Cleveland, in order to render the page into a read-only state. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because this prevents the user from taking unintentional or harmful actions, as taught by Cleveland (see Cleveland, paragraph 0058, described supra).
Breeder-Schouten, as modified by Gruber and Cleveland, further teach the method… wherein the applications further include a calendar application, wherein an expected timeline of the first action is determined and used for the determining whether the first action attempted to be taken on the first web page matches the user’s intent.
Gruber further teaches that apps include calendar apps, and the calendar app context information includes expected timelines of actions, reminders, important dates, and other contextual information used to infer user intent (see Gruber, paragraphs 0128-0135, 0189-0192, 0195-0202, 0205-0216, 0240-0249, and 0262, described supra, claim 1).
Dependent claim 14 recites a computer program product, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions readable and/or executable by a computer to cause the computer to perform the method of dependent claim 4. Accordingly, dependent claim 14 is rejected under the same rationales used to reject dependent claim 4, which are incorporated herein.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breedvelt-Schouten, in view of Gruber, further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0094177 A1, filed as a U.S. National Stage Entry by Kruger et al., on April 21, 2006, and published on April 26, 2007 (hereinafter Kruger).
With respect to dependent claim 5, Breedvelt-Schouten, as modified by Gruber, teaches the method of claim 1, as described above.
Breedvelt-Schouten and Gruber fail to further teach the method wherein a cursor speed on the first web page is decreased while traversing over at least a portion of the first web page as a result of the intent-based blocking action being issued.
However, Kruger teaches using a virtual landscape of “mountains” and “valleys” to simulate terrain the pointer must traverse to reach controls (see Kruger, Fig. 2; see also, Kruger, paragraphs 0028-0029 [user inputs are made easier or harder based on pointer being positively or negative reactive to an element, which serves to speed up or slow down the pointer as it approaches the element] and 0032 [describing Fig. 2, in which a virtual mountain range is used to visualize the effects of speeding up or slowing down pointers to encourage selection of certain elements, or prevent selection of others]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Breedvelt-Schouten, Gruber, and Kruger before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Breedvelt-Schouten, as modified by Gruber, to incorporate slowing down the cursor as taught by Kruger, in order to prevent the user from clicking unintended elements. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because this prevents the user from taking unintentional or harmful actions, as taught by Kruger (see Kruger, paragraph 0011 [“Thus a user is so to speak prompted by the system to effect specific inputs quickly and the attraction of the input areas to the input means helps the said user to input data and confirm commands. In contrast said user must make more effort when a point is more difficult to access and pays the corresponding input window or confirmation button correspondingly greater attention once this resistance is overcome. This means that easier inputting and more considered inputting of data or commands is achieved as a function of the user profile.”])
Dependent claim 15 recites a computer program product, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions readable and/or executable by a computer to cause the computer to perform the method of dependent claim 5. Accordingly, dependent claim 15 is rejected under the same rationales used to reject dependent claim 5, which are incorporated herein.
Claims 7, 8, 10, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breedvelt-Schouten, in view of Gruber, further in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,887,245 B1, issued to Wiltzius et al., on November 11, 2014, and filed on December 17, 2012 (hereinafter Wiltzius).
With respect to dependent claim 7, Breedvelt-Schouten discloses the method of claim 6, as described above.
Breedvelt-Schouten and Gruber fail to further teach the method wherein issuing the intent-based blocking action includes issuing a notification, wherein the notification is issues as a pop-up to a display of a computer device that the user is using to navigate to the first web page via the browser, wherein the pap-up is positioned on the first web page over one or more selection boxes that are determined to not match an interest of the user.
However, Wiltzius teaches displaying a pop-up warning to alert the user about the danger of the action and prevents it from going through without explicit user override, the notification embodied as a pop-up modal that is positioned over one or more of the selection boxes that do not match an interest of the user (see Wiltzius, Figs. 1, 8, 16, 18; see also, Wiltzius, col. 3, line 54- col. 4, line 3 [describing Fig. 1, where the browser identifies the action as not matching the user’s intent (intent is to provide info to reputable source, action is provide to non-reputable source), and provides a redirect to a new pages the provides a notification of the issue], col. 16, lines 1-15 [describing Fig. 8, which provides a pop-up warning], col. 22, lines 24-37 [describing Fig. 16, which provides a different pop-up warning], col. 22, lines 65 – col. 23, line 17 [describing Fig. 18, which provides a third pop-up warning]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Breedvelt-Schouten, Gruber, and Wiltzius before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Breedvelt-Schouten, as modified by Gruber, to incorporate issuing a notification as taught by Wiltzius, in order to prevent the user from making unintended actions. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because this prevents the user from taking unintentional or harmful actions, as taught by Wiltzius (see Wiltzius, col. 1, lines 27-39 [“It is difficult to protect users against the threat of improper use of sensitive information for a variety of reasons. One reason that it is difficult to protect users is that many users lack the awareness to be able to distinguish between trustworthy online providers and untrustworthy online providers. For example, inexperienced Internet users find it difficult to identify whether a website's connection is secure or is not secure. Even experienced Internet users forget to check for website security indicators, such as secure socket layer (SSL) indicators, or do not know that such security indicators exist. Furthermore, these website security indicators provide a variety of confusing security information that even the savviest Internet users may not fully understand.”]).
With respect to dependent claim 8, Breedvelt-Schouten, as modified by Gruber, teaches the method of claim 6, as described above.
Breedvelt-Schouten and Gruber fail to further teach the method wherein issuing the intent-based blocking action includes issuing a redirect.
However, Wiltzius teaches providing a redirect to a warning page to alert the user about the danger of the action and prevents it from going through without explicit user override (see Wiltzius, Fig. 1; see also, Wiltzius, col. 3, line 54- col. 4, line 3, described supra, claim 7).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Breedvelt-Schouten, Gruber, and Wiltzius before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Breedvelt-Schouten, as modified by Gruber, to incorporate using a redirect as taught by Wiltzius, in order to prevent the user from making unintended actions. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because this prevents the user from taking unintentional or harmful actions, as taught by Wiltzius (see Wiltzius, col. 1, lines 27-39, described supra, claim 7).
With respect to dependent claim 10, Breedvelt-Schouten, as modified by Gruber, teaches the method of claim 1, as described above.
Wherein the first action is taken on the first web page by the user, Breedvelt-Schouten further teaches determining whether a first action attempted to be taken by a user on the web page matches the user intent (see Breedvelt-Schouten, paragraphs 0045 and 0056, described supra, claim 1).
Wherein the user is directed to a second web page as a result of the first action being taken on the first web page, Breedvelt-Schouten further teaches navigating to a second page based on the action (see Breedvelt-Schouten, paragraphs 0045 and 0056, described supra, claim 1).
And comprising:
Determining that a second action taken on the second web page does not match the user's intent; Breedvelt-Schouten further teaches determining whether a new action on the second page matches user intent (see Breedvelt-Schouten, paragraphs 0045 and 0056, described supra, claim 1).
Breedvelt-Schouten and Gruber fail to further teach the method comprising issuing an alert that the taken actions do not match the user's intent.
However, Wiltzius teaches providing a redirect to a warning page to alert the user about the danger of the action and prevents it from going through without explicit user override (see Wiltzius, Fig. 1; see also, Wiltzius, col. 3, line 54- col. 4, line 3, described supra, claim 7).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Breedvelt-Schouten, Gruber, and Wiltzius before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Breedvelt-Schouten, as modified by Gruber, to incorporate using a redirect as taught by Wiltzius, in order to prevent the user from making unintended actions. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because this prevents the user from taking unintentional or harmful actions, as taught by Wiltzius (see Wiltzius, col. 1, lines 27-39, described supra, claim 7).
Dependent claims 17 and 19 recite a computer program product, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions readable and/or executable by a computer to cause the computer to perform the method of dependent claims 7 and 10. Accordingly, dependent claims 17 and 19 are rejected under the same rationales used to reject dependent claims 7 and 10, which are incorporated herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicants’ disclosure. See PTO-892.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, figures, or lines in the prior art references any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331-33, 216 USPQ 1038-39 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are 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 ERIC J. BYCER whose telephone number is (571) 270-3741. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9am-6pm, and alternate Fridays 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, MATT ELL can be reached on (571) 270-3264. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/ERIC J. BYCER/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2141
Prosecution Insights