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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-13 and 17-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/29/2025.
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the Amendments filed on 02/04/2026. Claims 1, 8, and 14-16 have been amended, claim 2 has been canceled, and claims 9-13 and 17-20 were previously withdrawn. Claims 1, and 3-8 and 14-16 are examined below.
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, 3-8 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1 recites (additional limitations crossed out):
An event chain reaction system for performing medical sample analysis instrument system diagnostics comprising
stream comprises data representing at least one sequence of ordered events generated by the medical sample analysis instrument system during and pertaining to operation of medical sample testing, wherein each event comprises information about a change in a state of the medical sample analysis instrument system and/or any of loaded medical samples or instrument resources;
compare events of the event stream to the one or more event chain(s);
based on the comparing, identify a start event in the event stream corresponding to one of the event chain(s);
upon identifying the start event of the event stream and corresponding event chain,
in response to determining that all events of the chain are matched to events of the event stream, triggering at least one reaction, wherein the reaction comprises performing one or more of generating a notification to an operator including information indicating an operational state of the sample analysis instrument system and/or issuing a command to at least one component of the analytical system to react in response to matching all events of the chain;
in response to determining that one of the events of the chain is not matched, resetting t
The above limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, as well as functions that may be performed mentally or with pen and paper. That is, other than reciting the claims as being performed by “at least one communication interface” and “one or more processors programmed and configured to execute: at least one chain reaction software component programmed to instantiate a plurality of instances of a one chain matching element”, nothing in the claims precludes the steps as being described as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, and functions that may be performed mentally or with pen and paper. The claims, as written describe receiving a sequence of events (event stream), searching for a particular set of ordered events (event chain); comparing the received sequence of events with the particular set of ordered events; identifying a start event in the sequence of ordered events based on the comparing; determining if the other events of the particular set of ordered events match events of the sequence of events, and; if the all the events are matched, triggering a reaction, and if one of the events is not matched, resetting to an initial state and continuing to compare events. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes functions that may be performed mentally or with pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of “at least one communication interface” and “one or more processors programmed and configured to execute: at least one chain reaction software component programmed to instantiate a plurality of instances of a one chain matching element” to perform the steps. However, these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (see at least page 12, lines 1-4, and page 28, lines 35-37) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are therefore still directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “at least one communication interface” and “one or more processors programmed and configured to execute: at least one chain reaction software component programmed to instantiate a plurality of instances of a one chain matching element” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims are not found to be patent eligible.
Claims 14 and 16 feature limitations similar to those of claim 17, and are also found to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 3-8 are dependent on claim 1, and include all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 15 is dependent on claim 14, and include all the limitations of claim 14. Therefore, they are also found to be directed to an abstract idea. Claim 7 features the additional limitation of “wherein the information about a change in a state of the analytical system comprises at least one of an operational information or a sensor signal generated by a least one sensor of the analytical system”, while claim 8 further indicates what the sensor signal indicates. However, the inclusion of sensor signals merely serves to place the judicial exception into a computer environment (i.e., data in the form of a sensor signal). The remaining dependent claims have not been found to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract idea since it merely further narrows the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-8 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding amended claim 1, the limitation “in response to determining that one of the events of the chain is not matched, resetting the respective chain matching element instance to an initial state by clearing the identification of the start event and successively matched events, and continuing to compare events of the event stream to the one or more event chain(s) waiting for the identification of another start event in the event stream” does not appear to be supported by the specification. The Examiner points to page 14 which states, in part, “The chain matching element may be stateful from the moment that the start event is received. The chain matching element may be configured for remembering what the next expected event is. At the moment that one received event is not matching anymore the next 35 expected event, then the event chain may be considered broken and the chain matching element may return to its initial state and may start waiting again for the start event.” The specification does not appear to provide any indication regarding what the initial state of the chain matching element is, or make reference to any other state of the chain matching element at all. Further, there is no mention of “clearing the identification of the start event and successively matched events”. As such, there is no indication in the specification that the inventor had possession of a system capable of resetting the chain matching element to an initial state.
Independent claims 14 and 16 feature limitations similar to those of claim 1, and are therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Dependent claims are rejected as well because they inherit the limitations of the independent claims.
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, 3-8 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhattacharyya (US 2020/0285997) in view of Srinivasan (US 2010/0057736) and Kodama (US 2002/0045976)
Regarding claim 1, Bhattacharyya partially discloses An event chain reaction system for performing medical sample analysis instrument system diagnostics comprising
at least one communication interface configured for receiving at least one event stream pertaining to the operation of a medical sample analysis instrument system, wherein the event stream comprises data representing at least one sequence of ordered events generated by the medical sample analysis instrument system during and pertaining to operation of medical sample testing, wherein each event comprises information about a change in state of the medical sample analysis instrument system and/or any of loaded medical samples or instrument resources;
(See at least Para. [0346] – “Of course, other types of vehicles, engines, or machines may similarly be subject to the monitoring and analysis.”, and Para. [0489] – “…capturing a stream of data representing sensor readings over states of the system during an operational phase;” However, Bhattacharya does not explicitly disclose that the data representing the operational phase is in relation to a medical sample analysis instrument system. The Examiner notes that this is merely a label for the data and adds little, if anything, to the claimed acts or steps and thus does not serve to distinguish over the prior art. Any differences related merely to the meaning and information conveyed through labels (i.e., the particular type of data) which does not explicitly alter or impact the steps of the method (i.e., receiving data) does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have the received machine data of Bhattacharyya be associated with operation of a medical sample analysis instrument because the type of received data does not functionally alter or relate to the steps of the method and merely labeling the database structures differently from that of the prior art does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
In the event that it is argued that they type of data is not a label, the Examiner points to Berger, at least Para. 0001] The present invention relates to a remote maintenance system that prevents possible failure of an apparatus or detects a failure caused, and relates particularly to a remote maintenance system suitable for displaying the result of remote maintenance of general measuring equipment (hereinafter called an apparatus-to-be-maintained) including clinical inspection data analyzer or clinical inspection data processor” and Para. [0059] – “[0059] In general remote maintenance, a piece of operating information of an apparatus-to-be-maintained is referred to and a system makes a judgment of carrying out an actual maintenance action if a calculated value concerning the information exceeds an allowable limit. Operating information means record of the condition of an apparatus-to-be-maintained while the power to the apparatus is on. The operating information includes periodic maintenance information necessary for carrying out periodic inspection of the apparatus, failure information on failures detected and recorded by the apparatus automatically, and analytical environment tracing information collected by an analyzer in carrying out an analysis. The periodic maintenance information includes operating hours of the apparatus, number of times of operation of a special mechanism such as a syringe mechanism for placing a specimen separately, and history of the maintenance carried out manually by the personnel in charge. The failure information includes record of alarm codes corresponding to a failure detected by the apparatus and record of parameters upon occurrence of the failure.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bhattacharyya to feature the medical device of Kodama since they are both in the same field of endeavor (i.e., maintenance of machinery), and all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Bhattacharyya also discloses:
one or more processors programmed and configured to execute:
at least one chain reaction software component programmed to instantiate a plurality of instances of a chain matching software element wherein the instances of the chain matching software elements operate in parallel and are each configured to search for one or more event chain(s) within the received event stream data, each chain defining a particular set of ordered events in the operation of a medical sample analysis instrument system, wherein a first event of the chain represents a start event, and wherein each of instances of the chain matching element is configured to:
compare events of the event stream to the one or more event chain(s);
based on the comparing, identify a start event in the event stream corresponding to one of the event chain(s);
See at least Para. [0482] – “At run time, the system calculates the z-scores of error data from the engine sensor data time series then optionally calculates the robust Mahalanobis distance (and/or Bhattacharyya distances) of the z-scores of error data of the selected dimension(s) (i.e., engine sensor(s)). The value is compared against the range of Mahalanobis distances (and/or Bhattacharyya distances) for analyzing and comparing a set of tensors of z-scores of errors during a test period against a set of tensors of z-scores of errors during training period that had a positive match and tagging, that were stored previously as a part of the deployed classification labels (specific type of failure or not specific type of failure) and classified accordingly.”, and Para. [0490] – “ A further object provides a method of determining a statistical norm for non-anomalous operation of a system, comprising: receiving a plurality of captured streams of training data at a remote server, the captured plurality of streams of training data representing sensor readings over a range of states of a system during a training phase; processing the received a plurality of captured streams of training data to determine a statistical norm for characterized joint statistical properties that reliably distinguishes between a normal state of the system and an anomalous state of the system, the characterized joint statistical properties being based on a plurality of streams of data representing sensor readings over the range of states of the system during the training phase, comprising quantitative standardized errors between a predicted value of a respective training datum, and a measured value of the respective training datum, and a variance of the respective plurality of quantitative standardized errors over time; and transmitting the determined statistical norm to the system. The method may further comprise, at the system, capturing a stream of data representing sensor readings over states of the system during an operational phase, and producing a signal selectively dependent on whether the stream of data representing sensor readings over states of the system during the operational phase are within the statistical norm.” The Examiner asserts that the language “At run time, the system calculates the z-scores of error data from the engine sensor data time series…” is indicative of the start of the event stream. Also see Para. [0538] – “The processes and logic flows described in this specification can be performed by one or more programmable processors executing one or more computer programs to perform actions by operating on input data and generating output. The architecture may be CISC, RISC, SISD, SIMD, MIMD, loosely-coupled parallel processing, etc.”
Bhattacharyya does not explicitly disclose upon identifying the start event of the event stream and corresponding event chain, successively determining whether the other events of the corresponding event chain match to events of the event stream; (While Bhattacharya discloses the comparing of streamed data to a statistical norm, Bhattacharya does not explicitly require the comparison of the data in a sequential manner. See Srinivasan at least Para. [0077] – “Further, as part of the processing performed in 408, the automaton that is constructed may then be used during runtime to guide the pattern matching process to detect presence of the specified pattern in a specified event stream.”, Para. [0083] – “The third column of the table identifies a state to which a transition is made from the initial state upon receiving an event that matches the symbols identified in the second column of the table. For example, as shown by the first two rows of Table A, the FSA starts in state Q0. If an event received in the event stream causes the first symbol A in the pattern to be matched, then the FSA transitions from state Q0 to state Q1. However, if any other symbol ( e.g., B, C, D, or R) is matched by the received event, then the FSA continues to be in state Q0. Likewise, when in state Ql, if the next event causes symbol B to be matched, then the FSA transitions to state Q2 and if the event matches a A, C, D, or R, then the state reverts to state Q0. In this manner, Table A specifies the automaton for the pattern identified by regular expression (AB CAB D).”, Para. [0090] – “(1) The FSA starts in state Q0.”, and Para. [0079] – “One or more actions may be performed upon detecting a full pattern match in the input event stream (step 410). The actions performed may include sending a signal indicating a match, outputting event instances that resulted in the full pattern match, and other actions.” Also see at least Paras. [0090]-[0099]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bhattacharyya to detect pattern matches in the manner taught by Srinivasan since it may assist Bhattacharyya in detecting anomalies (Para. [0312]).
Bhattacharyya also discloses in response to determining that all events of the chain are matched to events of the event stream, triggering at least one reaction, wherein the reaction comprises performing one or more of generating a notification to an operator including information indicating an operational state of the sample analysis instrument system and/or issuing a command to control at least one component of the sample analysis instrument system to react in response to matching all events of the chain; (See at least Para. [0482] – “The value is compared against the range of Mahalanobis distances (and/or Bhattacharyya distances) for analyzing and comparing a set of tensors of z-scores of errors during a test period against a set of tensors of z-scores of errors during training period that had a positive match and tagging, that were stored previously as a part of the deployed classification labels (specific type of failure or not specific type of failure) and classified accordingly. When a failure classification is obtained, the alerts system sends notifications to human operators and/or automated systems.” Alternatively, see Srinivasan, Para. [0079] – “One or more actions may be performed upon detecting a full pattern match in the input event stream (step 410). The actions performed may include sending a signal indicating a match, outputting event instances that resulted in the full pattern match, and other actions”
Bhattacharyya does not explicitly disclose in response to determining that one of the events of the chain is not matched, resetting the respective chain matching element instance to an initial state by clearing the identification of the start event and successively matched events and continuing to compare events of the event stream to the one or more event chain(s) waiting for the identification of another start event in the event stream (See at least Srinivasan, Para. [0083] – “The third column of the table identifies a state to which a transition is made from the initial state upon receiving an event that matches the symbols identified in the second column of the table. For example, as shown by the first two rows of Table A, the FSA starts in state Q0. If an event received in the event stream causes the first symbol A in the pattern to be matched, then the FSA transitions from state Q0 to state Q1. However, if any other symbol ( e.g., B, C, D, or R) is matched by the received event, then the FSA continues to be in state Q0. Likewise, when in state Ql, if the next event causes symbol B to be matched, then the FSA transitions to state Q2 and if the event matches a A, C, D, or R, then the state reverts to state Q0. In this manner, Table A specifies the automaton for the pattern identified by regular expression (AB CAB D).” modify Bhattacharyya to detect pattern matches in the manner taught by Srinivasan since it may assist Bhattacharyya in detecting anomalies (Para. [0312]).
Regarding claim 3, Bhattacharyya discloses the event chain reaction system according to claim 1, wherein the chain reaction component is configured to trigger multiple reactions of the at least one reaction at the same time. (See at least Para. [0482] – “When a failure classification is obtained, the alerts system sends notifications to human operators and/or automated systems.”)
Regarding claim 4, Bhattacharyya discloses The event chain reaction system according to claim 1, wherein each of the events of the event stream comprises a time stamp corresponding to when the event was produced. (See at least Para. [0350] – “The edge device collects an n-dimensional engine data time series that may include, but is not limited to, timestamps (ts) and the following engine parameters: engine speed (rpm), engine load percentage (load), coolant temperature ( coolant temperature), coolant pressure ( coolant pressure), oil temperature ( oil temperature), oil pressure ( oil pressure), fuel pressure ( fuel pressure), and fuel actuator percentage (fuel actuator percentage).”
Regarding claim 5, Bhattacharyya discloses the event chain reaction system according to claim 1, wherein each of the events of the event stream comprises an originator identifier indicating a portion of the analytical system which has produced the event. (See at least Para. [0507] – “When the anomaly detection system starts 1002, model configuration metadata 1004 such as the independent engine parameters and any restriction to their values, dependent engine parameters and any restriction to their values, model name, etc. are accessed from a model metadata table stored in a database 1006.”
Regarding claim 6, Bhattacharyya discloses The event chain reaction system according to claim 1, wherein the chain comprises an ordered set of events indicative of a feature of the analytical system. (See at least Para. [0490] – “ A further object provides a method of determining a statistical norm for non-anomalous operation of a system, comprising: receiving a plurality of captured streams of training data at a remote server, the captured plurality of streams of training data representing sensor readings over a range of states of a system during a training phase; processing the received a plurality of captured streams of training data to determine a statistical norm for characterized joint statistical properties that reliably distinguishes between a normal state of the system and an anomalous state of the system, the characterized joint statistical properties being based on a plurality of streams of data representing sensor readings over the range of states of the system during the training phase, comprising quantitative standardized errors between a predicted value of a respective training datum, and a measured value of the respective training datum, and a variance of the respective plurality of quantitative standardized errors over time; and transmitting the determined statistical norm to the system. The method may further comprise, at the system, capturing a stream of data representing sensor readings over states of the system during an operational phase, and producing a signal selectively dependent on whether the stream of data representing sensor readings over states of the system during the operational phase are within the statistical norm.”
Regarding claim 7, Bhattacharyya discloses The event chain reaction system according to claim 1, wherein the information about a change in a state of the analytical system comprises at least one of an operational information or a sensor signal generated by at least one sensor of the analytical system. (See at least Para. [0490] – “The method may further comprise, at the system, capturing a stream of data representing sensor readings over states of the system during an operational phase, and producing a signal selectively dependent on whether the stream of data representing sensor readings over states of the system during the operational phase are within the statistical norm.”
Regarding claim 8, Bhattacharyya discloses The event chain reaction system according to claim 7, wherein the information about a change in a state of the medical sample analysis instrument system comprises at least one information selected from the group comprising:
a sensor signal indicating that performance of the medial sample analysis instrument system is changing;
a sensor signal indicating that a sample rack is loaded;
a sensor signal indicating that sample container is identified;
a sensor signal indicating that over temperature is detected;
a sensor signal indicating that a fuse is broken; or,
a sensor signal indicating that at least one hardware component of the medical sample analysis system performs differently than expected.
(See at least Para. [0340] – “FIG. 8 shows example raw engine sensor data at a time prior to and during a Fuel Pump Failure (occurring on August 28), where average engine load, average engine fuel pressure and average manifold pressure are shown, in accordance with some embodiments.”, and Para. [0347] – “The edge device may interface with the engine's electronic control module/unit (ECM/ECU) and collects engine sensors data as a time series (e.g., engine revolutions per minute (RPM), load percent, coolant temperature, coolant pressure, oil temperature, oil pressure, fuel pressure, fuel actuator percentage, etc.) as well as speed and location data from an internal GPS/DGPS or vessel's GPS/DGPS.”
Claims 14 and 16 feature limitations similar to those of claim 1, and are therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim 15 features limitations similar to those of claim 6, and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues with substance:
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that, in view of page 32, lines 16-27, that the “initial state” of the chain matching element represents the state of searching an event stream for a “start event”. This is not persuasive. The portion of the specification cited by the Applicant is silent in regards to what constitutes an “initial state”, and if anything merely restate that language of the original claims, but with slightly different verbiage.
Applicant's arguments regarding claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues with substance:
Applicant argues that the claims could not be performed with “mental steps”. Applicant argues that obtaining numerous events (sometimes over the periods of months) and employing (in parallel) multiple instances of the event chain matching components to search and match the events with predetermined event chains cannot be performed or reduced to mental steps. This is not persuasive. First, the Examiner notes that they hypothetical large amount of data does not make the task of searching and matching data any less abstract. Further, the act of employing multiple instances in parallel merely equates to employing multiple people to perform the searching and matching. A simple analog example would be 100 people each playing the card matching game of Concentration at once. Moreover, even if the claims do not feature mental steps, they are still also found to fall under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities”.
Applicant argues that “the combination of claimed elements are not routine or conventional as there is not combination of references that describe or suggest each of the features of the any pending claims”. This is not persuasive. Even if the claim elements were found to be novel, novelty is not a consideration in the 101 analysis.
Applicant's arguments regarding claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered but they are moot due to the application of additional prior art. The inclusion of Srinivasan and Kodama were found to teach the amended claim language.
Conclusion
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 KYLE G ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9261. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:00 - 4:30 EST; Friday 7:00-11:00 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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at 571-272-6702. 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.
/KYLE G ROBINSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3685
/KAMBIZ ABDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3685
Prosecution Insights