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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on 09/18/2025. Claims 1-3, 7-10, 14-17 and 21-27 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent claims. Claims 4-6, 11-13 and 18-20 are canceled. This Office Action is made Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
3. Claims 1-3, 7-10, 14-17 and 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims 1, 8 and 15 contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding the amendment to the claims 1, 8 and 15 such as “a mapping that links one or more data fields of the first and second applications or processes”, the examiner cannot find the support from the specification. The examiner can see the support of mapping of data associated with the first and the second applications from the original claim 1 as part of the spec, provided by the applicant in the remark. However, the examiner still cannot see the support for the claim limitation such as “a mapping that links one or more data fields of the first process to one or more data fields of the second process”.
Claims 2-3, 7, 9-10, 14, 16-17 and 21-27 are also rejected for incorporate the deficiency of their independent claims 1, 8 and 15 respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nucci (US PGPub 20130167109), in view of Kompalli (US PGPub 20040044987), in view of Brunswig (US PGPub 20130125053), in view of Falkenberg (US PGPub 20110153555), and further in view of Nishigaya (US PGPub 20010010056).
As per Claim 1, Nucci teaches of a method for developing integration processes, comprising: providing, at one or more computing devices, a process environment that integrates and executes [dynamic] processes associated with one or more software applications or processes, wherein the applications or processes communicate via integrations that include a source connection associated with a first application or process operating as a source of data, and a target connection associated with a second application or process operating as a target for receiving the data; (Fig. 2 and par 24, The website may be specially configured to provide a graphical user interface providing a visual designer environment permitting a user to define process flows between applications/systems, such as between trading partner and enterprise systems, to model a customized business integration process. The graphical user interface may be used by different enterprises/customers of the service provider. Par 29, Examples of other common activities include synchronizing customer data between applications, synchronizing product information between applications, notification of receipt of goods ordered by a retailer, receipt of a work related injury claim, and many others. Par 31-32, FIG. 3 shows a data map 300 according to an embodiment of the present disclosure. The data map 300 includes data fields 310 included at a first software application, labeled Application A [source application], and data fields 320 included at a second software application, labeled Application B [target application]. In an embodiment, a user of the business process integration platform graphical user interface 200 can manually generate a data map.)
generating a graphical representation of an integration including the first and second applications or processes and a mapping of data associated therewith, for display by a client computing device; (Par 31-32, Fig 2 and FIG. 3 shows a data map 300 according to an embodiment of the present disclosure. The data map 300 includes data fields 310 included at a first software application, labeled Application A, and data fields 320 included at a second software application, labeled Application B. In an embodiment, a user of the business process integration platform graphical user interface 200 can manually generate a data map.)
receiving user input directed to development of the integration including the first and second applications or processes and the mapping of data associated therewith; and (Par 24-26, The website may be specially configured to provide a graphical user interface providing a visual designer environment permitting a user to define process flows between applications/systems, such as between trading partner and enterprise systems, to model a customized business integration process. The graphical user interface may be used by different enterprises/customers of the service provider. The interface provides a menu of pre-defined user-selectable visual elements, and permits the user to arrange them as appropriate to model a process. The elements may include visual, drag-and-drop icons representing specific units of work required as part of the integration process, such as invoking an application-specific connector, transforming data from one format to another, routing data down multiple paths of execution by examining the contents of the data, business logic validation of the data being processed, etc. Information and computer executable instructions for presenting such a graphical user interface are stored in a memory of the service provider system 80. The graphical user interface allows the user to provide user input providing information relating to trading partners, activities, enterprise applications, enterprise system attributes, and/or process attributes that are unique to the end-to-end business integration process of a specific enterprise. FIG. 2 shows a graphical user interface 200 of an integration platform displayed within a web browser window 150. The exemplary graphical user interface 200 displays an exemplary business process integration model 210 in the form of a flow diagram modeling a shipment order business process. The visual model may be created by a user within the visual designer environment, via the website interface provided by the system 80. Par 32, The service provider 80 of FIG. 1 may use the data map 300 to generate and configure a system integration application program that will implement a customer's business process, such as the business process integration model 210 of FIG. 2. In another embodiment, the generation of a data map may be partially or fully automated based on information stored at a map database.)
Nucci does not specifically teach, however Kompalli teaches of updating the integration based at least in part on the user input. (Par 32, The system may be used to generate application integration software based on a declarative integration workflow. The generated software may be a template for application integration software, source code, and/or executable software instructions. The generated software may also be modifiable by a user after it has been generated. Par 34, Another aspect is a design workstation and accompanying user interface that is used to design, develop or modify a declarative integration workflow. The design workstation may generate the user interface used to design, develop or modify a declarative integration workflow. The design workstation may include some or all of the features previously described. Par 68-69, In some cases, a map scenario or a functional atom template may be generated and the template may be modified by a developer. Optionally, the developer may modify the map scenario or map scenario template generated (step 360). For example, the developer may select an integration design pattern, and the application integration workstation may present a list of functional atoms that correspond to the selected integration design pattern. Par 74, FIG. 4 depicts an example process 400 for modifying application integration software that uses declarative design patterns to integrate applications.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add updating the integration based at least in part on the user input, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Kompalli, into that of Nucci because this modification can help update the integration of the applications such as integration pattern, integration design pattern or map scenario template etc. based on the user input.
Neither Nucci nor Kompalli, however Brunswig teaches of a mapping that links one or more data fields of the first application or process to one or more data fields of the and second application or process (Par 3, Further, knowing binding information (e.g., a data processing path from a user interface element to a corresponding business object field and a database table field) is vital for integrating different business applications and also for other purposes such as data migration from one business application to another and the like. Within the business application, the data processing path from the user interface element to the corresponding business object field and the database table field is either described by mapping techniques such as object relational mapping (using meta-data) or it is hidden behind programmed application logic (using coding), which are time consuming and expensive processes. Par 23, FIG. 2 shows exemplary user interfaces from same and/or different vendors, according to an embodiment. User interfaces (e.g., 205, 210 and 215) are associated with a `sales order` business application. In one exemplary embodiment, the user interfaces (e.g., 205, 210 and 215) may be from same and/or different vendors. The user interfaces (e.g., 205, 210 and 215) may be from same vendor having different release version or from different business application products. On the other hand, the user interfaces (e.g., 205, 210 and 215) may be from different vendors.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a mapping that links one or more data fields of the first application or process to one or more data fields of the and second application or process, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Brunswig, into that of Nucci and Kompalli because this modification can help update the integration of different applications such as a dynamic process, by mapping the data fields of different (first and second) applications.
None of Nucci, Kompalli and Brunswig, however Falkenberg teaches a dynamic process having a plurality of stages, each stage at least partially defined by a set of tasks, and (Par 4, A content management system for adapting a workflow comprising a setting unit adapted for setting an allowed action for a user, a user interface configured to enable the user to create at least one information item depending on the allowed action for the user, in which the at least one information item comprises content to be published and a first information item status level indicative of a present status level of the content within the workflow, a storage unit adapted for storing the at least one information item, a workflow engine comprising a dynamic workflow stage determination engine adapted for executing the workflow which comprises stages each corresponding to a respective status level, such that a next stage of the workflow is determined based on a combination of different types of user status information, indicative of a status of the user, and the first information item status level. Par 29-31, Workflow engine--A workflow engine may denote a software application that manages and executes computer supported processes. A workflow engine facilitates the flow of information, tasks and events in a workflow system. The workflow may be executed in a dynamic way depending on a creator, editor or approver of the information item. Therefore, the sequence of stages within the workflow does not have to be executed in a fixed, pre-defined sequence.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a dynamic process having a plurality of stages, each stage at least partially defined by a set of tasks, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Falkenberg, into that of Nucci, Kompalli and Brunswig because this modification can help update the integration of the applications such as a dynamic process with various stages corresponding to different types and statuses of workflow to integrate the tasks or processes into the application at run-time.
None of Nucci, Kompalli, Brunswig and Falkenberg specifically teaches, however Nishigaya teaches of wherein the stages and tasks of the dynamic process are selectively executed based on at least event-based conditions (Par 16, “a flow control unit which is started by the action execution unit upon receipt of an event object in order to select an action to be executed next in accordance with a type of the received event object and to execute the selected action.” Claim 3, “a dynamic flow determination apparatus according to claim 1, wherein when an action (task) which has been executed upon receipt of an event [event-condition] returns an event object as the execution result, the flow control unit checks the type of the newly received event object, and repeats selection and execution of actions to be ignited next to thereby determine a dynamic flow.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein the stages and tasks of the dynamic process are selectively executed based on at least event-based conditions, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Nishigaya, into that of Nucci, Kompalli, Brunswig and Falkenberg because this modification can help increase efficiency and resource optimization by executing only necessary tasks and stages only when a specific event or condition is triggered.
As per Claim 2, Nucci further teaches of the method of claim 1, wherein the graphical representation of the integrated process is displayed within an interactive graphical user interface at the client computing device by the process environment, which receives user input directed to development of the dynamic process (Par 25, The graphical user interface allows the user to provide user input providing information relating to trading partners, activities, enterprise applications, enterprise system attributes, and/or process attributes that are unique to the end-to-end business integration process of a specific enterprise. For example, the graphical user interface may provide drop down or other user-selectable menu options for identifying trading partners, application connector and process attributes/parameters/settings, etc., and dialog boxes permitting textual entries by the user, such as to describe the format and layout of a particular data set to be sent or received, for example a Purchase Order. Par 26-27, FIG. 2 shows a graphical user interface 200 of an integration platform displayed within a web browser window 150. The exemplary graphical user interface 200 displays an exemplary business process integration model 210 in the form of a flow diagram modeling a shipment order business process. The visual model may be created by a user within the visual designer environment, via the website interface provided by the system 80. Par 19, The dynamic runtime engine may be an executable software application capable of running on a computer within the enterprise's network, which may include, for example, networks owned and/or operated by third party data center providers, such as OpSource, Amazon, etc. When started by a user, the executable software application connects to the automated development system and downloads an Extensible Markup Language (XML) representation of the visual model representing the integration process, and all requisite code needed to run the integration process. It’s obvious that the input to design and develop the business process is directed to development of the dynamic process.)
Re Claim 8, it is the system claim, having similar limitations of claim 1. Thus, claim 8 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Re Claim 9, it is the system claim, having similar limitations of claim 2. Thus, claim 9 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2.
Re Claim 15, it is the product claim, having similar limitations of claim 1. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Re Claim 16, it is the product claim, having similar limitations of claim 2. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2.
7. Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nucci (US PGPub 20130167109), in view of Kompalli (US PGPub 20040044987), in view of Brunswig (US PGPub 20130125053), in view of Falkenberg (US PGPub 20110153555), in view of Nishigaya (US PGPub 20010010056), and further in view of Ingoldby (US Patent 7506298).
As per Claim 3, Nucci teaches of the method of claim 1, wherein the process environment provides a process hierarchy that defines a hierarchy of parts of a dynamic process including stages and tasks, and (Par 30, Documents that are read into or sent out of a business process, such as the business process of FIG. 2, are each associated with a data profile. The data profile describes the layout or format of respective documents. For example, a data profile associated with a document may include field names, delimiters or column positions, data types, minimum/maximum string lengths, and the like. Par 43, Data fields and other variables included at database applications often include information formatted to conform to the XML protocol, wherein the names of data fields may include a string providing hierarchical or path information)
None of Nucci, Kompalli, Brunswig, Falkenberg and Nishigaya specifically teaches, however Ingoldby teaches of which is use by a column-based process editor to generate a graphical representation of the integrated process. (Col 12, lines 14-21, Fig 17, The optimal column-based implementation of this design is shown in the illustrated step "1". This design is used as the starting point for optimization. The column-based design is then put into a tree structure. The tree structure is a convenient data-structure that allows the individual primitives to be manipulated more easily. Thus, step 1 of FIG. 16 is a column-based solution having a tree structure. The nodes of the tree are labeled A through G, and correspond to primitives in a physical representation of the memory.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add use by a column-based process editor to generate a graphical representation of the integrated process, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Ingoldby, into that of Nucci and Kompalli, Brunswig, Falkenberg and Nishigaya because this modification can help update the integration of the applications such as integration pattern, integration design pattern or map scenario template etc. based on the user input.
Re Claim 10, it is the system claim, having similar limitations of claim 3. Thus, claim 10 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3.
Re Claim 17, it is the product claim, having similar limitations of claim 3. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3.
8. Claims 7, 14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nucci (US PGPub 20130167109), in view of Kompalli (US PGPub 20040044987), in view of Brunswig (US PGPub 20130125053), in view of Falkenberg (US PGPub 20110153555), in view of Nishigaya (US PGPub 20010010056), and further in view of Ahlborn (US PGPub 20130275475).
As per Claim 7, none of Nucci, Kompalli, Brunswig, Falkenberg and Nishigaya specifically teaches, however Ahlborn teaches of the method of claim 1, wherein the process environment is provided within or as part of a cloud environment. (Par 32, These customized executable system integration software applications may be run at an enterprise network location or hosted in a cloud computing environment such as one hosted by the service provider.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the process environment is provided within or as part of a cloud environment., as conceptually seen from the teaching of Ahlborn, into that of Nucci, Kompalli, Brunswig, Falkenberg and Nishigaya because this modification can help update the integration of the applications using cloud-based environment, where the applications or the data can be located in the cloud server.
Re Claim 14, it is the system claim, having similar limitations of claim 7. Thus, claim 14 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 7.
Re Claim 21, it is the product claim, having similar limitations of claim 7. Thus, claim 21 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 7.
9. Claims 22, 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nucci (US PGPub 20130167109), in view of Kompalli (US PGPub 20040044987), in view of Brunswig (US PGPub 20130125053), in view of Falkenberg (US PGPub 20110153555), in view of Nishigaya (US PGPub 20010010056), and further in view of Hu (US PGPub 20160078079).
As per Claim 22. none of Nucci, Kompalli, Brunswig, Falkenberg and Nishigaya specifically teaches, however Hu teaches of the method of claim 1, further comprising generating the graphical representation of the dynamic process for display by the client computing device based on a process information, the graphical representation includes the tasks of the dynamic process organized into columns corresponding to one or more of the stages of the dynamic process. (Par 2-3, Based on the storage format of data records, a relational database system can have either row store or column store to save data records. In a row store database, data records are arranged in row format. On the other hand, in a column store database, data records are arranged in column format. A column store delivers good performance for online analytical processing (OLAP) queries, as it need only read those columns necessary to process a query which also significantly reduces disk I/O operations. Par 19-20, FIG. 5A is an illustration of a Unified Modeling Language (UML) sequence diagram of the first stage of a process implemented for dynamically and adaptively building a column store database, wherein the process uses an adaptive, just-in-time, and just-enough statement based migration process to satisfy an executing query, in accordance with one embodiment of the present disclosure.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add generating the graphical representation of the dynamic process for display by the client computing device based on a process information, the graphical representation includes the tasks of the dynamic process organized into columns corresponding to one or more of the stages of the dynamic process, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Hu, into that of Nucci, Kompalli, Brunswig, Falkenberg and Nishigaya because this modification can help update the integration of the applications using cloud-based environment, where the applications or the data can be located in the cloud server.
Re Claim 24, it is the system claim, having similar limitations of claim 22. Thus, claim 24 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 22.
Re Claim 26, it is the product claim, having similar limitations of claim 22. Thus, claim 26 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 22.
10. Claims 23, 25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nucci (US PGPub 20130167109), in view of Kompalli (US PGPub 20040044987), in view of Brunswig (US PGPub 20130125053), in view of Falkenberg (US PGPub 20110153555), in view of Nishigaya (US PGPub 20010010056), in view of Hu (US PGPub 20160078079), and further in view of Thayer (US PGPub 20180278675).
As per Claim 23. none of Nucci, Kompalli, Brunswig, Falkenberg, Nishigaya and Hu specifically teaches, however Thayer teaches of the method of claim 22, further comprising storing process information that includes one or more properties, execution conditions, activation/termination criteria, or assigned roles, in a process database along with associated data for use in deploying an instance of the dynamic process. (Par 5, Some aspects include a process to dynamically provision and terminate instances of a single-tenant application deployed for a multi-tenant use case based on workload, the process including: assigning, with one or more processors, different instances of a single-tenant application among a plurality of instances of the single-tenant application to different computing sessions with different client computing devices associated with different tenant user accounts, wherein: each instance of the single-tenant application is configured, either before, upon, or after launching, to access data of the single-tenant application in a database, the database stores data of multiple tenants accessed by instances of the single-tenant application, and the stored data of different tenants among the multiple tenants is associated with different tenant user accounts; while the plurality of instances of the single-tenant application are executing, determining, with one or more processors, in a first determination, that a workload of the plurality of instances of the single-tenant application satisfies a first threshold condition; in response to the first determination, automatically provisioning, with one or more processors, an added instance of the single-tenant application; assigning, with one or more processors, the added instance of the single-tenant application to a session with a given client computing device; after provisioning the added instance of the single-tenant application, determining, with one or more processors, in a second determination, that a workload of the single-tenant application satisfies a second threshold condition, the second threshold condition corresponding to a smaller workload than the first threshold condition; and in response to the second determination, automatically terminating, with one or more processors, at least one instance of the single-tenant application, wherein: each instance of the single-tenant application is accessed by a single tenant at a time, and a number of instances of the single-tenant application executing is dynamically scaled responsive to workload. Par 75, Upon determining that the workload metric satisfies the threshold condition in block 84, some embodiments may proceed to automatically provision an instance of the single-tenant application, as indicated in block 86.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add storing process information that includes one or more properties, execution conditions, activation/termination criteria, or assigned roles, in a process database along with associated data for use in deploying an instance of the dynamic process, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Thayer, into that of Nucci, Kompalli, Brunswig, Falkenberg, Nishigaya and Hu because this modification can help update the integration of the applications using cloud-based environment, where the applications or the data can be located in the cloud server.
Re Claim 25, it is the system claim, having similar limitations of claim 23. Thus, claim 25 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 23.
Re Claim 27, it is the product claim, having similar limitations of claim 23. Thus, claim 27 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 23.
Response to Amendment
11. The amendment filed on 09/18/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. Regarding the amendment to the claims 1, 8 and 15 such as “a mapping that links one or more data fields of the first process to one or more data fields of the second process”, the examiner cannot find the support from the specification. The examiner can see the support of mapping of data associated with the first and the second applications from the original claim 1 as part of the spec. Claims 2-3, 7, 9-10, 14, 16-17 and 21-27 are also rejected for incorporate the deficiency of their independent claims 1, 8 and 15 respectively. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
12. Applicant’s arguments of the remark on pages 8-9 with respect to claims 1, 8 and 15 with their dependent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAE UK JEON whose telephone number is (571)270-3649. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-6pm. 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, Chat Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. 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.
/JAE U JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights