DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Application
This office action is in response to the most recent filings filed by applicants on 03/02/26:
Claims 2, 9 and 16 are amended
Claim 1 is cancelled
No claims are added
Claims 2-21 are pending
Note:
In the most recent amendments filed by applicants, the following claims are ambiguous and may need further clarification:
“generate an interactive user interface for display on a computing device as a pivot table that enables dynamic customization of examiner metrics, wherein data displayed in the pivot table is normalizable using factors set by a user;”
The above underlined limitation is ambiguous because it is not positively recited. Data being normalizable does not mean it is normalized. The breadth of the above limitations makes it difficult to understand the scope of the claim.
“calculate for each respective case law reference of the case law references cited in office action responses against patent claim rejections by the examiner, a total number of instances where a respective case law reference was cited in office action responses against patent claim rejections by the examiner for patent applications which were allowed, wherein a successful case law citation is determined by analyzing art cited against a claim before and after an office action response or by textual analysis of a response to arguments section of a subsequent office action; and”
It is unclear where in the specification this above limitation is shown. The closest paragraph in the specification is as follows, which is also the paragraph applicants have pointed to in the remarks:
[0018]: The data analyzer module 102 may also analyze the success rate of arguments made in responses to an Office Action. A successful argument may be determined by looking at the art cited against a claim before and after an argument or by textual analysis of a response to arguments section of a subsequent Office Action. The data analyzer module 102 may also determine the success rate of cited case law by an Applicant in a response. For example, the outcome of citing a particular case in response to a §101 rejection may be stored in a database. Over time, this may allow a user to see what cases are most likely to overcome §101 rejections (or 112, 102, 103, etc.) A more granular approach may also be used. For example, a user of the application may be able to look at an individual examiner/art unit/tech center and see what case law has the best chance of success.
The above paragraphs of the specification are reciting the amended limitation at a high level of generality. There are no details provided to show a formula or an algorithm or anything that actually allows for the calculation to be done. Since, there is no details recited related to this limitation, the amended claim could simple be understood as a tally or a counter that is keeping track of case law that is successful in overcoming a rejection, which is a certain method of organizing human activity, and also can easily be done by a human being. If applicants are able to show alternate paragraphs in the specification that show the above calculation, that may help move the case forward in prosecution.
In light of these notes, the amended claims, do not overcome previously presented rejections under 101 and 103. As is discussed below. This note is intended as a conversation starter to help applicants understand the examiner’s perspective. Applicants are welcome to call the examiner to discuss this further.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed by applicants on 05/10/24 has been approved. As such, the previously made Double Patenting Rejection has been withdrawn.
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 2-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step One - First, pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance on 84 Fed. Reg. 53, the claims 16-21 is/are directed to a method which is a statutory category.
Step One - First, pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance on 84 Fed. Reg. 53, the claims 2-8 is/are directed to a system which is a statutory category.
Step One - First, pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance on 84 Fed. Reg. 53, the claims 9-15 is/are directed to a computer program product which is a statutory category.
Under the 2019 PEG, Step 2A under which a claim is not “directed to” a judicial exception unless the claim satisfies a two-prong inquiry. Further, particular groupings of abstract ideas are consistent with judicial precedent and are based on an extraction and synthesis of the key concepts identified by the courts as being abstract.
With respect to the Step 2A, Prong One, the claims as drafted, and given their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the Abstract idea grouping of “certain methods of organizing human activity” (business relations; relationships or interactions between people). For instance, independent Claim 16 is directed to an abstract idea, as evidenced by claim limitations “generating for obtaining examiner data for an examiner in a patent office from a set of experience sources, wherein the examiner data includes educational experience, patent office experience, and work experience; generating for obtaining examiner patent prosecution data for the examiner from a set of patent prosecution data sources; submitting the first API call to the set of experience sources and the second API call to the set of patent prosecution data sources; parsing the examiner data and examiner patent prosecution data, retrieved in response to the first API call and the second API call, to retrieve details from the examiner data and the examiner patent prosecution data, and store the details as structured data for the examiner; generating dynamic customization of examiner metrics, wherein data displayed in the pivot table is normalizable using factors set by a user; receiving, a search query, the search query identifying the examiner in the patent office; querying the at least one database with the search query; in response to the querying, receiving results from the at least one database, the results including references cited by the examiner in rejections of patent claims and allowance metrics that include case law references cited in office action responses against the rejections of the patent claims made by the examiner; displaying a name for the examiner and a reference section, wherein the reference section includes: reference metrics, selectable reference visualization options; and a reference visualization that is based on the reference metrics and a selected reference visualization option of the selectable reference visualization options; and calculating, in response to user selection of visualization options in the pivot table, reference metrics comprising: for each respective reference of the references cited, a total number of instances where a respective reference was cited by the examiner; selecting references for a list of most common references cited by the examiner in patent claim rejections based on a total calculated for each respective reference of the references cited; transmitting for an entry of the examiner with the list of most common references cited by the examiner in patent claim rejections by the examiner; calculating for each respective case law reference of the case law references cited in office action responses against patent claim rejections, a total number of instances where a respective case law reference was cited in office action responses against patent claim rejections by the examiner for patent applications which were allowed, wherein a successful case law citation is determined by analyzing art cited against a claim before and after an office action response or by textual analysis of a response to arguments section of a subsequent office action; and selecting candidate case law references for a list of most common case law references cited in office action responses against the patent claim rejections for allowed patent applications based on the total calculated for each respective case law reference of the case law references cited; and update the reference visualization in the pivot table to display calculated metrics based on visualization options selected by a user.”
These claim limitations belong to the grouping of “certain methods of organizing human activity” because the claims are related to collecting information related to an examiner at the Patent Office, including information related to experience metrics and allowance metrics for the examiner, once the information is gathered, the examiner metrics is analyzed to determine technology experience score and allowance rate information, then displaying results related to the information collected and analyzed. Managing information related to examiners at the Patent Office for one or more human entities involves organizing human activity based on the description of “certain methods of organizing human activity” provided by the courts. The present claims recite steps like those identified by the court as abstract, “certain methods of organizing human activity,” specifically like commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Additionally, the claims are directed toward mathematical concepts because they recite mathematical relationships and calculations, e.g., “calculating, for each respective reference of the references cited, a total number of instances where the respective reference was cited by the examiner”; “calculating, for each respective case law reference . . . a total number of instances . . . cited” [Claim 1].
Independent Claims 2 and 9 is/are recite substantially similar limitations to independent claim 16 and is/are rejected under 2A for similar reasons to claim 16 above.
With respect to the Step 2A, Prong Two - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites “A method for dynamically analyzing and visualizing patent examiner data through an interactive computer interface, comprising: a first application programming interface (API) call, a second API call, using at least one of optical character recognition, screen scraping, or field recognition, in at least one database, an interactive user interface for display on a computing device as a pivot table that enables, via the interactive user interface, on the interactive user interface in the pivot table, an update command to the at least one database; A system for analyzing and visualizing patent examiner data through an interactive computer interface, comprising: at least one processor; and memory including instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations to: At least one non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising instructions for dynamically analyzing and visualizing patent examiner data through an interactive computer interface that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations to:”, such that it amounts to no more than: adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
As a result, claims 1, 9 and 16 does not provide any specifics regarding the integration into a practical application when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
Similarly dependent claims 3-8, 10-15 and 17-21 are also directed to an abstract idea under 2A, first and second prong. In the present application, all of the dependent claims have been evaluated and it was found that they all inherit the deficiencies set forth with respect to the independent claims. For instance, dependent claim 3 recite “wherein the reference section indicates a percentage of cases a reference of the list of most common references is used in” and dependent claim 7 recite “wherein the allowance visualization options include an option to display an allowance rate for the examiner by assignee and wherein the allowance visualization is updated based on selection of the option.” Here, the claims are simply reciting the display of a calculation, such that it amounts to no more than: adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). As a result, Examiner asserts that dependent claims, such as dependent claims 3-8, 10-15 and 17-21 are also directed to the abstract idea identified above.
With respect to Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. First, the invention lacks improvements to another technology or technical field [see Alice at 2351; 2019 IEG at 55], and lacks meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment [Alice at 2360, 2019 IEG at 55], and fails to effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing [2019 IEG, 55]. For the reasons articulated above, the claims recite an abstract idea that is limited to a particular field of endeavor (MPEP § 2106.05(h)) and recites insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(g)). By the factors and rationale provided above with respect to these MPEP sections, the additional elements of the claims that fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application also fail to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of “A method for dynamically analyzing and visualizing patent examiner data through an interactive computer interface, comprising: a first application programming interface (API) call, a second API call, using at least one of optical character recognition, screen scraping, or field recognition, in at least one database, an interactive user interface for display on a computing device as a pivot table that enables, via the interactive user interface, on the interactive user interface in the pivot table, an update command to the at least one database; A system for analyzing and visualizing patent examiner data through an interactive computer interface, comprising: at least one processor; and memory including instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations to: At least one non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising instructions for dynamically analyzing and visualizing patent examiner data through an interactive computer interface that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations to:” are insufficient to amount to significantly more. Applicant’s originally submitted specification describes the computer components above at least in: [0038]-[0039]: general purpose hardware, [0019]-[0021] describes the user interface, [0012] recites “In various examples, a user may use the computing device 116 (e.g., desktop computer, laptop, tablet, mobile phone) to begin execution of an application to interact with or help generate the data described herein. The application may be stored on the computing device 116 or may be served to the computing device 116 from a server, such as the web server 106. In various examples, the data presented to the user in the application may be locally stored, remotely stored, dynamically calculated, or combinations thereof. While a single application is described herein, multiple applications may be used. For example, one application may be used to retrieve a profile of an examiner-as described in more detail below-and a different application may be used to monitor potential abandonments. For illustration purposes, the application will be discussed as a web application served from the web server 106 to the computing device 116”. In light of the specification, it should be noted that the components discussed above did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because they merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., "implementation via computers"). In light of the specification, it should be noted that the claim limitations discussed above are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). (See MPEP 2106.05(f) - Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception - “Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 235). Mere instructions to apply an exception using computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.).
The claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Independent Claims 2 and 9 is/are recite substantially similar limitations to independent claim 16 and is/are rejected under 2B for similar reasons to claim 16 above.
Further, it should be noted that additional elements of the claimed invention such as claim limitations when considered individually or as an ordered combination along with the other limitations discussed above in method claim 16 also do not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because they merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., "implementation via computers"). In light of the specification, it should be noted that the claim limitations discussed above are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP 2106.
Similarly, dependent claims 3-8, 10-15 and 17-21 also do not include limitations amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea under the second prong or 2B of the Alice framework. In the present application, all of the dependent claims have been evaluated and it was found that they all inherit the deficiencies set forth with respect to the independent claims. Further, it should be noted that the dependent claims do not include limitations that overcome the stated assertions. Here, the dependent claims recite features/limitations that include computer components identified above in part 2B of analysis of independent claims 1, 9 and 16. As a result, Examiner asserts that dependent claims, such as dependent claims 3-8, 10-15 and 17-21 are also directed to the abstract idea identified above.
For more information on 101 rejections, see MPEP 2106, January 2019 Guidance at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-01 -07/pdf/2018-28282.pdf
Prior Art Rejection Withdrawn
In light of the allowance of related case # 15/183093, and in light of the originally filed disclosure the prior art cited in the related case does not read on the claim limitations below for following reasons:
The amended claims, claim 16, recite the following:
“A method for dynamically analyzing and visualizing patent examiner data through an interactive computer interface, comprising:
generating a first application programming interface (API) call for obtaining examiner data for an examiner in a patent office from a set of experience sources, wherein the examiner data includes educational experience, patent office experience, and work experience;
generating a second API call for obtaining examiner patent prosecution data for the examiner from a set of patent prosecution data sources;
submitting the first API call to the set of experience sources and the second API call to the set of patent prosecution data sources;
parsing the examiner data and examiner patent prosecution data, retrieved in response to the first API call and the second API call, using at least one of optical character recognition, screen scraping, or field recognition to retrieve details from the examiner data and the examiner patent prosecution data, and store the details as structured data for the examiner in at least one database;
generating an interactive user interface for display on a computing device as a pivot table that enables dynamic customization of examiner metrics, wherein data displayed in the pivot table is normalizable using factors set by a user;
receiving, via the interactive user interface, a search query, the search query identifying the examiner in the patent office;
querying the at least one database with the search query;
in response to the querying, receiving results from the at least one database, the results including references cited by the examiner in rejections of patent claims and allowance metrics that include case law references cited in office action responses against the rejections of the patent claims made by the examiner;
displaying on the interactive user interface in the pivot table, a name for the examiner and a reference section, wherein the reference section includes:
reference metrics
selectable reference visualization options; and
a reference visualization that is based on the reference metrics and a selected reference visualization option of the selectable reference visualization options; and
calculating, in response to user selection of visualization options in the pivot table, reference metrics comprising:
for each respective reference of the references cited, a total number of instances where a respective reference was cited by the examiner;
selecting references for a list of most common references cited by the examiner in patent claim rejections based on a total calculated for each respective reference of the references cited;
transmitting an update command to the at least one database for an entry of the examiner with the list of most common references cited by the examiner in patent claim rejections by the examiner;
calculating for each respective case law reference of the case law references cited in office action responses against patent claim rejections, a total number of instances where a respective case law reference was cited in office action responses against patent claim rejections by the examiner for patent applications which were allowed, wherein a successful case law citation is determined by analyzing art cited against a claim before and after an office action response or by textual analysis of a response to arguments section of a subsequent office action; and
selecting candidate case law references for a list of most common case law references cited in office action responses against the patent claim rejections for allowed patent applications based on the total calculated for each respective case law reference of the case law references cited; and
update the reference visualization in the pivot table to display calculated metrics based on visualization options selected by a user.”
The most recent amendments are underlined above, and are supported by the specification at least in [0018] as follows:
“[0018] The data analyzer module 102 may also analyze the success rate of arguments made in responses to an Office Action. A successful argument may be determined by looking at the art cited against a claim before and after an argument or by textual analysis of a response to arguments section of a subsequent Office Action. The data analyzer module 102 may also determine the success rate of cited case law by an Applicant in a response. For example, the outcome of citing a particular case in response to a § 101 rejection may be stored in a database. Over time, this may allow a user to see what cases are most likely to overcome § 101 rejections (or 112, 102, 103, etc.) A more granular approach may also be used. For example, a user of the application may be able to look at an individual examiner/art unit/tech center and see what case law has the best chance of success.”
In light of the amendments and the description in the specification, previously cited references either independently or in combination do not show the combination of amended claim limitations above. For instance,
Holt; Christopher L. et al. (US 2015/0121185) shows [0032]: which shows a crawler, that periodically, or continuously, crawls through sources of publicly available information looking for examiner-written documents, or other suitable sources of information that become available and have not been previously stored in the database 21. When the patent office data interface 13 finds such information, it may download, categorize and/or store the information in the database 21. Further, in [0054]: Holt shows an examiner allowance rate filter, an art unit allowance rate filter. Holt in Fig. 7C, shows comparison of an examiner’s pending, allowances issued and abandoned cases. Fig. 10, shows benchmarking examiner performance to show average statistics of examiners and then it allows you to choose filters that help you sort further. However, the reference does not show the combination of claim limitations above.
Van Luchene; Andrew S. et al. (US 2007/0219853; previously referred to as Van Luchene) shows ([0107]) the ability to create a database of all of the examiners and their histories. Such information may be used to create a profile of a patent examiner. This profile may be used to determine the examiner(s) with the most relevant experience in regards to each application received. Profiles may include information regarding previous applications that the examiner has examined, the patent applications in the examiner's queue for examination, the examiner's efficiency rating, the prior art cited in the previous and/or waiting applications, the examiner's education, the examiner's particular area of expertise, the length of time it takes the examiner to examine an application, the examiner's grade or level, the examiner's current workload, the examiner's seniority, the examiner's previous experience, the examiner's training, the number of reissues in previously filed applications, the number of appeals filed, the results of appealed applications, or any combination thereof. [0197]: where examiner statistics related to each examiner’s office actions, rejections, reference history etc. is studied, also, see Fig. 4, [0181]: examiner experience, qualification, education and score, where technology center have been identified. [0105]: examiner experience and history. [0107]: examiner experience, examiner’s previous experience and examiner’s training, [0126]: examiner experience, examiner training and examiner score, [0147]: examiner with the most relevant experience is determined, [0181]: examiner experience, qualification, education and score. However, the reference does not show the combination of claim limitations above.
Van Luchene; Andrew S. et al. (US 2007/0220041; previously referred to as Van Luchene1) shows in [0757] shows the office actions performed by the system or patent examiners utilizing the same prior art on similar patent applications (and their rejection rates). [0760]: shows the seniority or ranking of patent examiners who have cited the prior art for the similar patent applications in the past. [0761]: shows the number of times the prior art data is cited in similar patent applications. [0762]: shows the number of times the prior art data is accessed or the duration of such access by one or more end users and patent examiners to conduct searches on similar patent applications. Further, in [0132]: shows the ability to provide an automated web-based patent application preparation and submission tool. In one embodiment, an end user can draft a patent application using an online tool. Once the patent application or portion thereof is created, the document can be submitted to: (i) a researcher for further research, (ii) a patent attorney for further drafting, or (iii) the patent office. However, the reference does not show the combination of claim limitations above.
*Additionally, the prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure; however, the reference does not show the above claim limitations:
Reference (US 2004/0181427) BIERNACKI J V et al. discloses computer implemented patent portfolio analysis method involves analyzing text of claim to generate claim breadth metric and storing breadth metric in computer-readable data set. However, the reference does not show the above claim limitations.
Reference (US 2005/0210009) Tran, Bao. Systems and methods are disclosed for providing an electronic file for intellectual property applications by receiving electronic file wrapper information from a patent office; and generating a single electronic document for an entry in the electronic file wrapper information, the document having all images for the entry consolidated therein. However, the reference does not show the above claim limitations.
NPL Reference:
Reference Lemley et al. Examiner Characteristics and Patent Office Outcomes. The Review of Economics and Statistics. Date: August 01, 2012. https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article-abstract/94/3/817/58008/Examiner-Characteristics-and-Patent-Office?redirectedFrom=fulltext shows in important differences across patent examiners at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. We show that more experienced examiners cite less prior art, are more likely to grant patents, and are more likely to grant patents without any rejections. These results suggest that the most important decisions made by the patent office are significantly affected by the happenstance of which examiner gets an application. They also point to human resource policies as potentially important levers, hitherto neglected, in patent system reform. However, the reference does not show the claim limitations above.
Foreign Reference:
Reference (WO 2013061152 A2) ASHISH H et al. shows in the method involves performing predefined statistical analysis on a set of patents (102), where the set of patents and patent portfolio have similar patent distribution. Office Action parameters associated with the set of patents and the patent portfolio are identified based on the predefined statistical analysis performed on the set of patents (104). A number of Office Actions issued are estimated for the patent portfolio based on the predefined statistical analysis performed on the set of patents and the identified Office Action parameters (106). However, the reference does not show the claim limitations above.
None of the prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, teach, interalia, the claimed invention as detailed in independent claims 1, 8 and 15, wherein the novelty of the claimed invention is in the combination of limitations and not in any single limitation.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of the rejection necessitated by the amendments made to previously presented claims and in light of the Note above. The amended claims are ambiguous and as such it is unclear how the additional elements of the claims integrate to add any meaningful limits to the abstract idea. As a result, examiner is unable to determine if the claims represent an improvement to technology or technical field.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(US 2004/0181427) Biernacki J V et al.
(US 2005/0210009) Tran, Bao.
Reference Lemley et al. Examiner Characteristics and Patent Office Outcomes. The Review of Economics and Statistics. Date: August 01, 2012. https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article-abstract/94/3/817/58008/Examiner-Characteristics-and-Patent-Office?redirectedFrom=fulltext
Reference (WO 2013061152 A2) ASHISH H et al.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NANCY PRASAD whose telephone number is (571)270-3265. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM 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, Patricia Munson can be reached on (571)270-5396. 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.
/N.N.P/
Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/PATRICIA H MUNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights