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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/05/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 9-11 and 19-20 are non-provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being anticipated by claims 1-3 of US Patent No. 11688504 B2 (“reference application”).
Instant Application
Reference Application
(US Pat No.12118471 B2)
1. A system for informing food element decisions in the acquisition of edible materials from any source, the system comprising a processor coupled to a memory, the processor further configured to: receive, from a user client device operated by a user, a food element descriptor wherein the food element descriptor comprises a sequence uniquely identifying a particular food element, wherein the particular food element comprises one or more ingredients, wherein the one or more ingredients is selected by the processor to be placed on a vector output based on a threshold importance score of ingredients based on user body information of a group profile; retrieve, from a physiological database located on the processor, a plurality of user physiological data comprising at least a user nutrient body measurement corresponding to each user of the group profile; identify, using the plurality of user physiological data and a machine-learning algorithm, a plurality of constitutional effect labels, each of the plurality of constitutional effect labels indicating one of a positive or negative effect on each user of the group profile, wherein identifying the plurality of constitutional effect labels comprises receiving physiological training data wherein physiological training data further comprises physiological data correlated to the plurality constitutional effect labels; classify, using a food element classifier, the food element descriptor as a function of the plurality of constitutional effect labels; and display, by the processor, on a graphical user interface a constitutional effect label corresponding to each user of the group profile.
1. A system for informing food element decisions in the acquisition of edible materials from any source, the system comprising a processor coupled to a memory, the processor is further configured to: receive, from a user client device operated by a user, a food element descriptor wherein the food element descriptor further comprises a sequence uniquely identifying a particular food element; wherein the particular food element further comprises one or more ingredients; and wherein the one or more ingredients is selected based on a threshold importance score of ingredients based on user body information; retrieve, by the processor from a physiological database, at least an element of user physiological data, said at least an element of user physiological data comprising a user nutrient body measurement; identify, using the user nutrient body measurement and a machine-learning algorithm, a plurality of constitutional effect labels, each of the plurality of constitutional effect labels indicating one of a positive or negative effect on the user, wherein identifying the plurality of constitutional effect labels comprises: receiving physiological training data wherein physiological training data further comprises physiological data and correlated to constitutional effect labels; and training, using the machine-learning algorithm and the physiological training data, a physiological model correlating physiological data with constitutional effect labels; inputting the at least an element of user physiological data comprising the user nutrient body measurement into the physiological machine-learning model; and outputting, from the physiological machine-learning model, the plurality of constitutional effect labels as a function of the physiological machine-learning and the at least an element of user physiological data comprising the user nutrient body measurement; generate a food element classifier, wherein the food element classifier comprises a classification algorithm, wherein the classification algorithm is trained by using training data comprising user physiological data sets of a plurality of users, the user physiological data sets comprising at least a nutrient body measurement of a user of the plurality of users, wherein the training data correlates the food element descriptor to the plurality of identified constitutional effect labels, and wherein responsive to training, the food element classifier is configured to provide an output of one or more constitutional effect labels of the food element description for a specific user responsive to an input of the nutrient body measurement of the specific user and the food element descriptor; classify, using the food element classifier based at least on the nutrient body measurement of the specific user, the food element descriptor as a function of the plurality of constitutional effect labels; and display, by the processor on a graphical user interface for the specific user, the food element descriptor and a constitutional effect label for the food element descriptor, wherein the food element descriptor is displayed according to a food element category of the food element descriptor.
9. The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to receive at an image capture device located on the processor a wireless transmission from the user client device containing a picture of a food element.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to receive, by the processor from an image capture device, a wireless transmission from the user client device containing a picture of a food element.
10. The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to receive at an image capture device located on the processor a wireless transmission from the user client device containing a picture of a uniform code commission barcode.
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to receive, by the processor from an image capture device, a wireless transmission from the user client device containing a picture of a uniform code commission barcode.
11. A method for informing food element decisions in the acquisition of edible materials from any source, the method comprising: receiving, from a user client device operated by a user, a food element descriptor wherein the food element descriptor comprises a sequence uniquely identifying a particular food element, wherein the particular food element comprises one or more ingredients, wherein the one or more ingredients is selected by a processor to be placed on a vector output based on a threshold importance score of ingredients based on user body information of a group profile; retrieving, from a physiological database located on the processor, a plurality of user physiological data comprising at least a user nutrient body measurement corresponding to each user of the group profile; identifying, using the plurality of user physiological data and a machine-learning algorithm, a plurality of constitutional effect labels, each of the plurality of constitutional effect labels indicating one of a positive or negative effect on each user of the group profile, wherein identifying the plurality of constitutional effect labels comprises receiving physiological training data wherein physiological training data further comprises physiological data correlated to the plurality constitutional effect labels; classifying, using a food element classifier, the food element descriptor as a function of the plurality of constitutional effect labels; and displaying, by a processor, on a graphical user interface a constitutional effect label corresponding to each user of the group profile.
1. A system for informing food element decisions in the acquisition of edible materials from any source, the system comprising a processor coupled to a memory, the processor is further configured to: receive, from a user client device operated by a user, a food element descriptor wherein the food element descriptor further comprises a sequence uniquely identifying a particular food element; wherein the particular food element further comprises one or more ingredients; and wherein the one or more ingredients is selected based on a threshold importance score of ingredients based on user body information; retrieve, by the processor from a physiological database, at least an element of user physiological data, said at least an element of user physiological data comprising a user nutrient body measurement; identify, using the user nutrient body measurement and a machine-learning algorithm, a plurality of constitutional effect labels, each of the plurality of constitutional effect labels indicating one of a positive or negative effect on the user, wherein identifying the plurality of constitutional effect labels comprises: receiving physiological training data wherein physiological training data further comprises physiological data and correlated to constitutional effect labels; and training, using the machine-learning algorithm and the physiological training data, a physiological model correlating physiological data with constitutional effect labels; inputting the at least an element of user physiological data comprising the user nutrient body measurement into the physiological machine-learning model; and outputting, from the physiological machine-learning model, the plurality of constitutional effect labels as a function of the physiological machine-learning and the at least an element of user physiological data comprising the user nutrient body measurement; generate a food element classifier, wherein the food element classifier comprises a classification algorithm, wherein the classification algorithm is trained by using training data comprising user physiological data sets of a plurality of users, the user physiological data sets comprising at least a nutrient body measurement of a user of the plurality of users, wherein the training data correlates the food element descriptor to the plurality of identified constitutional effect labels, and wherein responsive to training, the food element classifier is configured to provide an output of one or more constitutional effect labels of the food element description for a specific user responsive to an input of the nutrient body measurement of the specific user and the food element descriptor; classify, using the food element classifier based at least on the nutrient body measurement of the specific user, the food element descriptor as a function of the plurality of constitutional effect labels; and display, by the processor on a graphical user interface for the specific user, the food element descriptor and a constitutional effect label for the food element descriptor, wherein the food element descriptor is displayed according to a food element category of the food element descriptor.
19. The method of claim 11, wherein receiving a food element descriptor further comprises receiving at an image capture device a wireless transmission from the user client device containing a picture of a food element.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to receive, by the processor from an image capture device, a wireless transmission from the user client device containing a picture of a food element.
20. The method of claim 11, wherein receiving a food element descriptor further comprises receiving at an image capture device a wireless transmission from the user client device containing a picture of a uniform code commission barcode.
3. wherein the processor is further configured to receive, by the processor from an image capture device, a wireless transmission from the user client device containing a picture of a uniform code commission barcode.
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 and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 1
Step 1: The claim recites a system; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of manufacture.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below. The claim recites, inter alia:
“…a food element descriptor wherein the food element descriptor comprises a sequence uniquely identifying a particular food element, wherein the particular food element comprises one or more ingredients, wherein the one or more ingredients is selected by the processor to be placed on a vector output based on a threshold importance score of ingredients based on user body information of a group profile; retrieve, from a physiological database located on the processor, a plurality of user physiological data comprising at least a user nutrient body measurement corresponding to each user of the group profile; …a plurality of constitutional effect labels, each of the plurality of constitutional effect labels indicating one of a positive or negative effect on each user of the group profile, wherein identifying the plurality of constitutional effect labels comprises receiving physiological training data wherein physiological training data further comprises physiological data correlated to the plurality constitutional effect labels; classify, using a food element classifier, the food element descriptor as a function of the plurality of constitutional effect labels;”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]).
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of “A system for informing food element decisions in the acquisition of edible materials from any source, the system comprising a processor coupled to a memory… identify, using the plurality of user physiological data and a machine-learning algorithm,”, as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
“…the processor further configured to: receive, from a user client device operated by a user… and display, by the processor, on a graphical user interface a constitutional effect label corresponding to each user of the group profile.” as explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The only remaining limitation of the claim “…the processor further configured to: receive, from a user client device operated by a user,.” constitute storing and retrieving information in memory, which the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 2
Step 1: The claim recites a system; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of manufacture.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“wherein the group profile comprises a predetermined plurality of users associated to each other”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application [see MPEP 2106.05(d) I.], failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding claim 3
Step 1: The claim recites a system; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of manufacture.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“wherein identifying the plurality of constitutional effect labels further comprises utilizing a fuzzy set inference system.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]).
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of “computer-implemented, k-anonymity”, as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does 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 element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4
Step 1: The claim recites a system; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of manufacture.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of “wherein the processor is further configured to receive behavioral feedback.”, as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does 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 practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5
Step 1: The claim recites a system; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of manufacture.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below. The claim recites, inter alia:
“wherein the … is further configured to generate a historical record tracking the behavioral progress of each user in the group profile as a function of the behavioral feedback.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]).
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of “processor”, as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does 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 practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6
Step 1: The claim recites a system; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of manufacture.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below. The claim recites, inter alia:
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of “wherein the processor is further configured to receive a set nutrient goal.”, as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 7
Step 1: The claim recites a system; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of manufacture.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below. The claim recites, inter alia:
“wherein identifying the plurality of constitutional effect labels further comprises generating a detrimental score.”
This limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation a human could perform multinomial naïve bayes model using pen and paper because a human is capable of performing math using pen and paper or his/her head.
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application [see MPEP 2106.05(d) I.], failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding claim 8
Step 1: The claim recites a system; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of “wherein the processor is further configured to generate a substitute food element based on the detrimental score”, as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Step 2B: The claim does 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 practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9
Step 1: The claim recites a system; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of manufacture.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, “, “wherein the processor is further configured to receive at an image capture device located on the processor a wireless transmission from the user client device containing a picture of a food element.” as explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The only remaining limitation of the claim “wherein the processor is further configured to receive at an image capture device located on the processor a wireless transmission from the user client device containing a picture of a food element.” constitute storing and retrieving information in memory, which the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 10
Step 1: The claim recites a system; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of manufacture.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, “wherein the processor is further configured to receive at an image capture device located on the processor a wireless transmission from the user client device containing a picture of a uniform code commission barcode.” as explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The only remaining limitation of the claim “wherein the processor is further configured to receive at an image capture device located on the processor a wireless transmission from the user client device containing a picture of a uniform code commission barcode.” constitute storing and retrieving information in memory, which the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding claims 11-20
Claim 11-20 recites analogous limitations to claims 1-10 and therefore is rejected on the same ground as claims 1-10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VAN C MANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7598. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00pm.
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, David Yi can be reached at 5712707519. 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.
/VAN C MANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2126
Prosecution Insights