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 .
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection: Examiner has determined the claims are directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea). This new grounds of rejection necessitates this second non-final rejection.
103 Rejection: Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 6/12/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Puviani in view of Li.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The following is Examiner's analysis of the claimed invention under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (PEG)
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 1 recites a computer system (system), claim 11 recites an embedded system.
STEP2A Prong one: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. Claim 1 (and similar claim 11) recites “organizes the signal data into batches having a size less than the memory” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. The process of organizing data based on size is organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations. Accordingly, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea).
Claim 1 (and similar claim 11) recites “identifies the batches according to indices; and identifying the indices in randomly shuffled or arbitrary order” which falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. The steps of “identifying the batches” and “identifying the indices” covers the performance of the limitation in a human mind; therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 1 (and similar claim 11) recites “predict time-series parameter outputs from time-series parameter inputs” which falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. For example, a human using mental processes could predict manufacturing output (i.e., time-series parameter outputs) based on determined motor amperage (i.e., time-series parameter inputs). Accordingly, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea).
STEP2A Prong two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate the Judicial Exception into A Practical Application? No. Claim 1 recites “a computer system comprising: a memory; and a processor programmed to” which amounts to merely including instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Claim 11 recites “an embedded system comprising: a hardware registry; and a microcontroller
programmed to” which amounts to merely including instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Claim 1 (and similar claim 11) recites “construct and utilize a plurality of data package objects that each contains signal data describing time-series values for parameters”, “responsive to requests, provides output”, and “loads into the memory one of the batches such that features of the signal data of the one of the batches can be used to train a machine learning model” which is mere necessary data gathering and outputting because all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output.
Claim 1 (and similar claim 11) recites “removes from the memory the one of the batches to prevent the one of the batches and other of the batches from completely occupying all of the memory at a same time” which is insignificant extra-solution activity tangentially related to the invention. Adding a final step of removing batches from memory does not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract ideas.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
The courts have determined merely including instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer does not qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984).
Claim 1 (and similar claim 11) recites “removes from the memory the one of the batches to prevent the one of the batches and other of the batches from completely occupying all of the memory at a same time” which is storing and retrieving information in memory. The courts have determined storing and retrieving information in memory is well‐understood, routine, and conventional functionality when claimed in a merely generic manner (See Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
For the reasons above, claims 1 and 11 are rejected as being directed to nonpatentable
subject matter under §101. This rejection applies equally to the dependent claims. The additional limitations of the dependent claims are addressed briefly below:
Regarding claim 2
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (computer system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate the Judicial Exception into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein the signal data describes time-series values for parameters of manufacturing equipment” which is mere necessary data gathering and outputting.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 3
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (computer system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate the Judicial Exception into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein the machine learning model is a sequence to sequence model” which amount to merely including instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined merely including instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer does not qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984).
Regarding claim 4
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (computer system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate the Judicial Exception into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “construct and utilize an experiment package object that, based on the output identifying the indices from the data package objects, generates the requests such that the batches that are sequentially loaded into and removed from the memory are from different ones of the data package objects” which is mere necessary data gathering and outputting.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 5
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (computer system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate the Judicial Exception into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein each of the data package objects further contains metadata describing control limits” which is mere necessary data gathering and outputting.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 6
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (computer system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate the Judicial Exception into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein each of the data package objects, responsive to the requests, further loads into the memory the metadata such that the machine learning model is trained subject to the control limits” which is mere necessary data gathering and outputting.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 7
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (computer system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate the Judicial Exception into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 8
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (computer system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate the Judicial Exception into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein the processor is further programmed to construct and utilize a pipeline object that performs a predefined and configurable sequence of data processing operations on the signal data to generate the features for modeling” which is mere necessary data gathering and outputting.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 9
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (computer system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate the Judicial Exception into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein the processor is further programmed to construct and utilize a model package object that contains the machine learning model and a taxonomy of all parameters required to reconstruct the machine learning model after training” which is mere necessary data gathering and outputting.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 10
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (computer system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate the Judicial Exception into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein the processor is further programmed to save the data package objects, experiment package objects, pipeline objects, or model package objects as serialized file objects that can be stored and loaded into the memory for re-use” which is mere necessary data gathering and outputting.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 12
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (embedded system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate the Judicial Exception into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein the signal data describes time-series values for parameters of manufacturing equipment” which is mere necessary data gathering and outputting.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 13
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (embedded system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate the Judicial Exception into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein the machine learning model is a sequence to sequence model” which amount to merely including instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined merely including instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer does not qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984).
Regarding claim 14
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (embedded system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate the Judicial Exception into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “construct and utilize an experiment package object that, based on the output identifying the indices from the data package objects, generates the requests such that the batches that are sequentially loaded into and removed from the memory are from different ones of the data package objects” which is mere necessary data gathering and outputting.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 15
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (embedded system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate the Judicial Exception into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein each of the data package objects further contains metadata describing control limits” which is mere necessary data gathering and outputting.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 16
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (embedded system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate the Judicial Exception into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein each of the data package objects, responsive to the requests, further loads into the memory the metadata such that the machine learning model is trained subject to the control limits” which is mere necessary data gathering and outputting.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 17
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (embedded system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate the Judicial Exception into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 18
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (embedded system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate the Judicial Exception into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein the processor is further programmed to construct and utilize a pipeline object that performs a predefined and configurable sequence of data processing operations on the signal data to generate the features for modeling” which is mere necessary data gathering and outputting.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 19
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (embedded system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate the Judicial Exception into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein the processor is further programmed to construct and utilize a model package object that contains the machine learning model and a taxonomy of all parameters required to reconstruct the machine learning model after training” which is mere necessary data gathering and outputting.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 20
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (embedded system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate the Judicial Exception into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein the processor is further programmed to save the data package objects, experiment package objects, pipeline objects, or model package objects as serialized file objects that can be stored and loaded into the memory for re-use” which is mere necessary data gathering and outputting.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Taken alone, the additional elements of the dependent claims do not amount to significantly
more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an
ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken
individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a
computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional
computer implementation.
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.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puviani et al (US 11633554 B1) hereafter Puviani in view of Li et al (US 20210110213 A1) hereafter Li
Regarding claim 1, Puviani teaches a computer system comprising: a memory; and a processor programmed to construct and utilize a plurality of data package objects that each contains signal data describing time-series values for parameters, identifies the batches according to indices, and responsive to requests, provides output identifying the indices in randomly shuffled or arbitrary order (Para 34, training phase can be computed periodically or only when certain conditions occur, or pseudo-randomly or randomly), loads into the memory one of the batches such that features of the signal data of the one of the batches can be used to train a machine learning model to predict time-series parameter outputs from time-series parameter inputs (Column 10 lines 55-60, the model predicts, as output, the puff duration of the next puff, and the model takes as input the puffing topography features of the puffs/trials preceding the considered puff and the related delivered doses).
Puviani does not appear to explicitly teach organizes the signal data into batches having a size less than the memory, and removes from the memory the one of the batches to prevent the one of the batches and other of the batches from completely occupying all of the memory at a same time.
In analogous art, Li teaches organizes the signal data into batches having a size less than the memory, and removes from the memory the one of the batches to prevent the one of the batches and other of the batches from completely occupying all of the memory at a same time (Para 0038, In determining the batch size, preferably a batch is determined such that a memory requirement for the batch is less than a memory limit of the processor, which may be a GPU or GPUs, used to train the image classification model). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Puviani to include the teaching of Li. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to create an optimal machine learning model, as taught by Li (Para 0024, find the best hyperparameters, such as learning rate, batch size, momentum, and so on).
Claim 11 is the embedded system claim corresponding to the computer system claim 1 and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brooks Hale whose telephone number is 571-272-0160. The examiner can normally be reached 9am to 5pm 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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached on (571) 272-4098. 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.
/B.T.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2166
/SANJIV SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2166
Prosecution Insights