DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This is a non-final office action on the merits in response to the arguments and/or amendments filed on 30 January 2026 and the request for continued examination filed on 30 January 2026.
Claim(s) 12 and 24 is/are canceled. Claim(s) 1, 10, 11, and 20 is/are amended. Claim(s) 25 and 26 is/are new.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10, 11, 13-17, 19, 20, 22, 25, and 26 is/are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 30 January 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 26 recites “wherein, to initiate the automated interview of the patient, an artificial intelligence (AI)-based application bot is invoked to perform the automated interview via the patient application.” It would be unclear to one of ordinary skill whether the limitation describes how to initiate the automated interview or whether the limitation requires invoking an application to perform the automated interview. As the claim does not positively recite the initiation of the automated interview, the former interpretation would render the limitation a description of a process not required by the claimed invention. Because the meaning of the claim would be ambiguous to one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is indefinite.
For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as describing how to initiate the automated interview, and thus not limiting the scope of the claimed invention.
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 1-8, 10, 11, 13-17, 19, 20, 22, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1, which is representative of claims 11 and 20, recites in part: a
receiving,
converting,
extracting,
referencing,
determining,
categorizing,
generating, child symptoms categorized in the positive category and (b) a negative list including any of the one or more child symptoms categorized in the negative category; and
processing,
and wherein data included in each cell of the tabular format includes the portion of the text, from the question and answer data, representing the plurality of answers to the plurality of questions invoking the one or more child symptoms comprising the positive list and the negative list for each of the plurality of complaints;
The preceding recitations of the claims have had strikethrough marks applied to the additional elements beyond the abstract idea to more clearly demonstrate the limitations setting forth the abstract idea.
The remaining limitations describe a concept of a process for summarizing data in order to generate a history of present illness. This concept describes a mental process that a medical assistant should follow to generate a HPI similar to the “mental process that a neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions” given in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) as an example of managing personal behavior in the methods of organizing human activity sub-grouping. As such, these limitation set forth a method of organizing human activity. Alternatively, the identified concept is analogous to the examples of “observation”, “evaluation”, “judgement”, and “opinion” given in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. As such, these limitations set forth a mental process. Therefore the claims are determined to recite an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106, reflecting the 2019 PEG, directs examiners at Step 2A Prong Two to consider whether the additional elements of the claims integrate a recited abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 describes the method as computer-implemented and recites the additional element of one or more processors of a healthcare services system. Claim 11 recites the additional element of a system comprising one or more processors; and at least one memory. Claim 20 recites the additional element of a non-transitory computer readable medium. These additional elements are all recited at an extremely high level of generality, and are interpreted as generic computing devices used to implement the abstract idea. er MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea on a generic computing device does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. As such, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims further recite the additional element of receiving from a patient application associated with the healthcare services system and executing on a patient computing device, an API call upon a launch of a symptom checker feature via the patient application and determining by the one or more processors, that the API call is a trigger condition to initiate an automated interview of a patient. This additional element does not appear to reflect any improvement to technology, any particular machine, or any transformation of an article. Instead, this additional element amounts to instructions to apply the abstract idea with a computing device. Alternatively, this additional element only generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment of a networked computing device. As such, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims further recite the additional element of receiving data from a patient application executing on a patient computing device. It is noted that the patient computing device is also interpreted as a generic computing device. The reception of data from an application running on a computing device does not impose a meaningful limit on the claim and instead amounts to necessary data gathering for the abstract idea. Thus this additional element is understood as insignificant extra-solution activity. Per MPEP 2106.05(g) insignificant extra-solution activity does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. As such this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims further describe the data as recorded from an automated interview performed by the patient application. This limitation only describes the source of received data and provides no further impact on the functionality of the claim scope. Thus this additional element is understood to only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment of computer automated interviews. Per MPEP 2106.05(h) generally linking an abstract idea to a technological environment does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. As such this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims further recite the additional element of identifying an electronic record of the patient using the patient identifier and storing the notation as an update to the electronic health record. Storing data in a file previously associated with a user identifier does not impose a meaningful limit on the claim and instead amounts to necessary data output. Thus this additional element is understood as insignificant extra-solution activity. Per MPEP 2106.05(g) insignificant extra-solution activity does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. As such this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims further recite in response to storing, automatically generating and transmitting to an application executing on a computing device, a notification of the update to the record. Notifying a user of a change in a file is not a meaningful limitation on the abstract idea, and instead should be interpreted as an insignificant application of a change to a record. Thus this additional element is understood as insignificant extra-solution activity. Per MPEP 2106.05(g) insignificant extra-solution activity does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. As such this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims further recite the additional element of in response to receiving from the application, an access request, identifying the electronic record using the identifier and transmitting the electronic record to the application for viewing. The incorporation of accessing of an electronic record via a request and a data transmission of the record amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea with a computing device. Per MPEP 2106.05(f) mere instructions to apply a judicial exception with a computing device does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. As such this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
There are no further additional elements. When the additional elements are considered as a combination, the combination does not provide anything that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as an improvement to the functioning of a computer or an improvement to a technical field. Further, the combination does not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment of prophylaxis for a disease or condition. Further, the combination does not implement the abstract idea with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Further, the combination does not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article. Further, the combination does not apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way. Instead, the combination of additional elements only generally links the abstract idea and insignificant extra-solution activity to a technological environment of computer automated interviews. Per MPEP 2106.04(d) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. As such, the combination of additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. Therefore the claims are determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B of the Mayo/Alice analysis, examiners are to consider whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As previously noted, the claims recite additional elements which may be interpreted as generic computing devices used to implement the abstract idea. However, per MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea on a generic computing does not add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. As such, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As previously noted, the claims recite an additional element receiving from a patient application associated with the healthcare services system and executing on a patient computing device, an API call upon a launch of a symptom checker feature via the patient application and determining by the one or more processors, that the API call is a trigger condition to initiate an automated interview of a patient. This additional element continues to amount to instructions to apply the abstract idea with a computing device. Alternatively, this additional element only generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment of a networked computing device. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As previously noted, the claims recite an additional element of receiving data from a patient application executing on a patient computing device. Per MPEP 2106.05(d), receiving data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As previously noted, the claims describe the data as recorded from an automated interview performed by the patient application. This limitation only describes the source of received data and provides no further impact on the functionality of the claim scope. Thus this additional element is understood to only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment of computer automated interviews. Per MPEP 2106.05(h) generally linking an abstract idea to a technological environment does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. As such, this limitation does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As previously noted, the claims recite an additional element of identifying an electronic record of the patient using the patient identifier and storing the notation as an update to the electronic health record. Per MPEP 2106.05(d), storing information in a memory is a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function. Additionally, Hussam (US 2015/0269316 A1) (“an identifier for the consumer; and causing, based on the identifier, an electronic medical record of the consumer to be updated with the received text information” [0005]), Minchon et al. (US 2017/0024520 A1) (“implement a method requesting an update of the electronic medical record associated with the patient affected by the vital data thus collected by the platform” [0025]), Yuzefovich (US 2014/0050307 A1) (“The patient identifier may then be identified from the parsing operation and used to locate the patient EMR so an association function can be performed to add the content of the call to the patient's EMR based on the identified patient identifier” [0024]”), Morris et al. (US 2016/0357912 A1) (“a patient record has a unique patient identifier (perhaps the patient's social security number, or other unique identifier) such that when the patients EMR is updated in one location by a care provider, all other care providers on the same network would have their EMR records for the same patient updated automatically” [0030]), and Rahme et al. (US 2017/0300620 A1) (“Writing the translated report to the care system 153 may include accessing the identifier so that the correct patient's EMR can be updated with the report from the radiologist” [0039]) collectively demonstrate that storing data in an existing electronic record based on a patient identifier was conventional before the priority date of the claimed invention. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As previously noted, the claims recite an additional element of in response to storing, automatically generating and transmitting to an application executing on a computing device, a notification of the update to the record. Per MPEP 2106.05(d), transmitting data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function. Additionally, Barton et al. (US 2002/0016959 A1) (“The notification via e-mail of the existence of the updated computer files may be provided as a subscription service by the computer file provider” Abstract), Dickinson (US 2003/0200207 A1) (“a server computer monitors network files and folders stored on the network for changes and then sends the user email notifications and updates when monitored items change” [0020]), Gong (US 2004/0064733 A1) (“All users having rights to access the attachments will receive e-mail notifications for any version or content update of a file” [0009]), Borden et al. (US 2007/0260643 A1) (“file owners can be notified via an email, phone call or instant messaging that a file update has occurred” [0200]), and Wong et al. (US 6654746 B1) (“The server then keeps track of the files subscribed to in a database, monitors the files for changes, and sends users notifications or file updates via email” Column 6, Lines 47-50) collectively demonstrate that transmitting notifications responsive to a file modification was conventional before the priority date of the claimed invention. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As previously noted, the claims recite an additional element of in response to receiving from the application, an access request, identifying the electronic record using the identifier and transmitting the electronic record to the application for viewing. Per MPEP 2106.05(d), transmitting data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function. Additionally, Raduchel (US 2009/0037224 A1) (“The user electronic device 130 receives user input requesting electronic medical records (310)” [0083], “The user electronic device 130 may, optionally, transfer the records to the recipient electronic device 180 (370)” [0089], “the electronic device 740 … generates a second request that includes a patient identifier “ [0139]), Buisman et al. (US 2012/0232931 A1) (“receiving a request of a user for a determination of an updated value of a health coaching parameter, wherein the request includes an identifier associated with an electronic health record corresponding to the patient; retrieving the electronic health record associated with the patient … providing the patient with the selected subset of the information from the knowledge base” Claim 1), Moeller (US 2013/0339050 A1) (“ In case of remotely residing EHR database, at least one of the messages transmitted by mobile communication terminal 100 to external computer 171 can include an EHR request comprising a patient identifier. Responsive to receiving the requested EHR, mobile communication terminal 100 can present at least a part of the received EHR to the operator of the terminal” [0044]), Ehrhart et al. (US 2016/0034642 A1) (“the user computing device 103 generates a search request 450. In this example the search request 450 includes the universal health identifier 366 of the patient P” [0177], “The search results 452 response is generated and send from the record search engine 202 to the user computing device 103, including the health records 122A,B that satisfied the query” [0180]), Kumar (US 2017/0344948 A1) (“communicating a patient record request corresponding to the selected appointment record, the patient record request communicated to the associated EMR server via the communications network according to the associated network location, and the patient record request comprising the associated patient identifier and the plurality of EMR field requests; receiving, from the EMR server via the communications network, a plurality of EMR field responses in response to the plurality of EMR field requests” [0047]) collectively demonstrate that remotely accessing a record based on an identifier was conventional before the priority date of the claimed invention. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
There are no further additional elements. When the additional elements are considered as a combination, the combination does not provide anything that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as an improvement to the functioning of a computer or an improvement to a technical field. Further, the combination does not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment of prophylaxis for a disease or condition. Further, the combination does not implement the abstract idea with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Further, the combination does not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article. Further, the combination does not apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way. Instead, the combination of additional elements only generally links the abstract idea and insignificant extra-solution activity to a technological environment of computer automated interviews. Per MPEP 2106.05, generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment has been found by the courts to be insufficient to qualify as significantly more than a judicial exception. As such, the combination of additional elements does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, when considered individually and as a combination, the additional elements of the independent claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus the independent claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-8, 10, 13-17, 19, 22, 25, and 26 further narrow the abstract idea, but the claims continue to set forth an abstract idea, albeit a narrower one. Claims 3, 4, 6-8, 13, 14, 16, 17, 22, and 25 do not recite any further additional elements. The previous discussed additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the narrowed abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons as given above. Claim 2 recite the additional element of natural language generation processing techniques. This additional element only generally links the narrowed abstract idea to a computing environment using natural language generation. As such, this additional element does not integrate the narrowed abstract idea into a practical application. Further, Pan et al. (US 2006/0015324 A1) demonstrates (“conventional data-driven natural language generation systems” [0024]) that natural language generation techniques were conventional long before the priority date of the claimed invention. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the narrowed abstract idea. The previously discussed additional elements, when considered in combination with the new additional element, do not integrate the narrowed abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the narrowed abstract idea because they only generally link the abstract idea and insignificant extra-solution activity to a particular technological environment. Claim 5 and 15 recites the additional element of a trained machine learning system. This additional element amounts to instructions to implement the narrowed abstract idea with a computing device. As such, this additional element does not integrate the narrowed abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the narrowed abstract idea. Further, the previously discussed additional elements, when considered in combination with the new additional element, do not integrate the narrowed abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the narrowed abstract idea because they only generally link the abstract idea and insignificant extra-solution activity to a particular technological environment. Claim 10 and 19 recite the additional element of the processors being configured to perform multi-threading and the operations are performed in parallel via the multi-threading. These additional elements only generally link the narrowed abstract idea to a computing environment using multi-threading. As such, these additional elements do not integrate the narrowed abstract idea into a practical application. Shibayama et al. (US 2004/019407 A1) demonstrates that multi-threading (“Conventional multithreading methods” [0004]) were conventional long before the priority date of the claimed invention. As such, these additional elements does not amount to significantly more than the narrowed abstract idea. The previously discussed additional elements, when considered in combination with the new additional element, do not integrate the narrowed abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the narrowed abstract idea because they only generally link the abstract idea and insignificant extra-solution activity to a particular technological environment. Claim 26 recites the additional element of an artificial intelligence (AI)-based application bot. This additional element amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea with a computing device and as such does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, Kang (US 2021/0209308 A1 demonstrates (See at least [0040]) that AI bots were conventional prior to the priority date of the claimed invention. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the narrowed abstract idea. The previous discussed additional elements, when considered in combination with the new additional element, do not integrate the narrowed abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the narrowed abstract idea because they only generally link the abstract idea and insignificant extra-solution activity to a particular technological environment.
Thus as the dependent claims remain directed to a judicial exception, and as the additional elements of the claims do not amount to significantly more, the dependent claims are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 101 Rejections of claims 1-8, 10-17, 19, 20, 22, and 24:
The amended independent claims describe specific and particular technical details of how and what triggers the patient application to obtain and provide the data recorded from an automated interview to the healthcare services system to initiate and fully autonomize a collection and sharing of data from a patient interview with the healthcare provider. … These specific interactions between the healthcare services system and the patient application amount to more than insignificant extra-solution activity and further reflect an improvement to computer functioning.
Here, the added elements are significant as they impose meaningful limits on the claims such that they are not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. … The recording and providing of the question and answer data from the patient interview by the patient application to the healthcare services system… .
The added elements are not merely incidental or token additions to the claim, as the added elements alter or affect how the process steps are performed. Specifically, the occurrence of the “receiving… question and answer data” and each of the subsequent steps to follow are dependent on (e.g., occur in response to) the system (i) receiving the API call from the patient application upon the launch of the symptom checker feature via the patient application and (ii) determining that the API is the trigger condition to initiate the automated interview.
The added elements reflect an improvement to computer functionality. As described in the specification, the patient interview process is one of several examples of “serverless functions that are only performed (e.g., are only consuming processing resources of ones of the server-side systems 106) when triggered by a specific condition,” where the “specific trigger condition for the patient interview process includes an API call to initiate the patient interview process when the patient launches the symptom checker features via the patient application 103.” Therefore, consumption of processing resources of the system is reduced by operating the patient interview process as a serverless function that is only performed or initiated in response to receiving the API call from the patient application and determining that the specific trigger condition is occurring.
The independent claims are highly analogous to eligible claim 1 presented in Example 42 of the 2019 PEG Examples. … Similar to the additional elements of claim 1 of Example 42, independent claim 1 of the present application recites the following elements acknowledged by the Office Action as additional elements: storing…; in response to the storing … generating and transmitting… . Similar to the specific improvements over prior art systems provided by the additional elements of claim 1 of Example 42, at least the “storage of notation including converted data format as update to electronic health record” and “notification generation and transmission responsive to storage” elements of the independent claims of the present application recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by enabling sharing a patient’s HPI data in a converted format with a healthcare provider in response to a patient reporting symptoms via a patient application.
The final data format, as claimed, is a particular data structure that provides disclosed improvements for a system storing the electronic health record. Specifically, the “final data format is a tabular format comprised of one or more rows representing the plurality of complaints, a first column representing the positive list, and a second column representing the negative list, and wherein data included in each cell of the tabular format includes the portion of the text, from the question and answer data, representing the plurality of HPI answers to the plurality of HPI questions invoking the one or more child symptoms comprising the positive list and the negative list for each of the plurality of complaints,” as recited in each of the independent claims. As disclosed in the specification, by including the final data format in the notation for storage, “computing resources including storage and processing resources can be saved by allowing simplified HPI notations to be stored and retrieved for user viewing, as compared to raw transcripts that may require additional storage space and processing power of the one or more computing devices of the system.”
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments filed 30 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument is largely drawn too on operations occurring outside the scope of the claim. Specifically, the claims do not require triggering the patient application. The claims describe receiving an API call and making a determination based on that call. One of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably consider this a “technical improvement.”
The patient application recording the interview is not part of the claim scope and thus cannot be an additional element.
The claim does not actually require that the “receiving… question and answer data” occurs responsive to the reception of the API call and the determination. For example, if a third device also receives the API call and actually initiates the interview, the one or more processors reception and determination would be completely incidental to the subsequent steps.
Per MPEP 2106.05(a), “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification.” Here, there is no technical explanation of how to implement the referenced functionality. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably consider performing a function responsive to receiving a remote call to be a “technical improvement” as of the 2022 priority date of the claimed invention.
The invention is only superficially analogous to Example 42, claim 1. The example explains that the eligible claim provides “a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user.” The asserted improvement of “enabling sharing of a patient’s HPI data in a converted format” is merely a restatement of what the claim recites rather than a solution that overcomes an identified technical problem.
Examiner notes that the “data format” should not be understood as a “data structure” in the computer science sense. The specification makes it clear that the “format” is a graphical format. For example, “The HPI portion of the notation 216 (e.g., the portion based on the HPI object 214) is generated in a graphical format. In other words, the HPI portion of the question and answer data 202 from the first format recorded by the application bot is converted to the graphical format via the building and further processing of the HPI object 214. In some examples, the graphical format is a chart, table, or other similar tabular format where the rows represent the complaints extracted from the question and answer data” [0065]. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the format to be a graphical arrangement of data for human consumption, rather than a data structure constructed for computer processing. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand a graphical arrangement as providing an improvement in “computing resources including storage and processing resources.”
Additional Considerations
The prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure can be found in the PTO-892 of the prior office action dated 19 November 2024.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bion A Shelden whose telephone number is (571)270-0515. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 12pm-10pm 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.
/Bion A Shelden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685 2026-04-18
Prosecution Insights