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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Amendments/Response filed on February 19, 2026. Claim(s) 1-6 have been amended. Claims 7-15 have been added. No claims have been cancelled. Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
The examiner fully acknowledges the amendments to claims 1-6 filed on February 19, 2026. The cancellation of the terms in question have been fully accepted, thus the drawing objections set forth in the previous office action are withdrawn.
The amendments to the claims have addressed the objections previously submitted, and as such the claim objections set forth in the previous office action pertaining to claims are withdrawn.
The amendments to the claims have addressed the 112(a)/(b) rejection previously submitted, and as such the claim rejection set forth in the previous office action pertaining to claims are withdrawn.
The applicant’s amendments to the claims 1 are sufficient to overcome the previous 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection, which previously indicated the claims as being anticipated by Kuriyama (US PG Pub No. 20220266348). However, the amendments are not considered to have overcome Kuriyama. Please see the updated rejections of claims 1, 4 and 5 that apply Kuriyama, addressing the amended limitations.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-16, filed February 19, 2026 have been fully considered.
101 Rejection: The applicants remarks have been fully considered but are not found persuasive. While the application is for “generating a control program for controlling a machine tool”, the activity of creating a program, writing/prescribing the steps and functions, intended parameters are all things that can be done as a mental process, displayed on pen and paper, and other means that result it the generation of the program as being an abstract idea.
However, if the applicant were to tie the physical machine, then it would bring the claims out of abstraction. If the specification supports after generating the program, that the program is then sent to the machine and executed, wherein a workpiece is machined, then the program generation moves from abstraction into concrete application.
But as the claims are currently presented, the independent claims are generally directed towards an apparatus for generating a control program, the apparatus comprising a memory, a processor that executes the steps of receiving a selection and generating a program that consists at least one command from a set a of commands. The 101 rejection of the claims is maintained, but updated due to the amendments presented in the presently filed claims.
102 Rejection: The applicant’s remarks have been fully considered. The amendments do overcome the previous rejection, however they are not considered to overcome Kuriyama.
Applicant on page 14, remarks that the claims are directed to generation machine control programs, specifically CNC machine operations. However, the claim recites “a control program for controlling a machine tool.” The term “machine tool” is broad. Many apparatuses fall under the description of being a machine tool.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., CNC, computer numerically controlled) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The office would look favorably if an amendment were to include limitations, supported by applicant’s [0017-0018], wherein it is recited “The machine tool system 200 includes an information processing apparatus 201 and a CNC (Computerized Numerical Control) machine tool 202.” This would positively recite that the system is a CNC system, and would require the prior to address that limitation.
As written, a reasonable interpretation of “generate” is simply produce.
The claims require either an apparatus or method that produces a program (orders or directives) controlling a machine tool to perform processing steps wherein a selection is made of finishing type, and at least one command is executed. The rejection in light of Kuriyama is maintained.
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, 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In accordance with MPEP 2106.04, each of Claims 1-15 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Each of Claims 1-15 recites at least one step or instruction for generating a control program, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
In regards to claim 1, an information processing apparatus for generating a control program for controlling a machine tool to perform a plurality of processing steps, comprising:
a memory storing one or more program instructions (additional element)
a processor configured to execute the one or more program instructions (additional element)
receive a selection of one operation type from a plurality operation types including at least rough processing and finishing processing (an extra-solution activity of acquiring/receiving a signal); and
generate the control program including at least one selected from a group of a command for setting an accuracy priority mode, a command for making the feed rate constant, and a command for not permitting processing during magazine turning in the processing program in a case where the finishing processing is selected on the selection screen (selecting and describing require evaluations or judgments, which are grouped as mental processes in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
In regards to claim 4, a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing an information processing program for generating a control program for controlling a machine tool to perform a plurality of processing steps, which causes a computer (additional element) to execute a method, comprising:
receiving a selection for of finishing processing as an operation type among a plurality of operational types (an extra-solution activity of acquiring/receiving a signal); and
generating the control program including at least one command selected from a first command for setting an accuracy priority mode, a second command for making the feed rate constant, and a third command for not permitting processing during magazine turning in the control program in a case where the finishing processing is selected (selecting and setting require evaluations or judgments, which are grouped as mental processes in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), e.g., selecting an operation is an observation done in the human mind).
In regards to claim 5, an information processing method for generating a control program for controlling a machine tool to perform a plurality of processing steps, which causes a computer (additional element) to execute a method, comprising:
receiving a selection for of finishing processing as an operation type among a plurality of operational types (an extra-solution activity of acquiring/receiving a signal); and
generating the control program including at least one selected from a first command for setting an accuracy priority mode, a second command for making the feed rate constant, and a third command for not permitting processing during magazine turning in the control program in a case in which the finishing processing is selected (selecting and setting require evaluations or judgments, which are grouped as mental processes in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), e.g., selecting an operation is an observation done in the human mind).
Further, dependent Claims 2-3 and 6-15 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the claimed functions/steps are performed.
In regards to claim 2, the tool path data generator that adds an APT (Automatically Programmed Tools) command for classification into the rough processing or the finishing processing to tool path data written in an APT language in accordance with the selection on the selection screen, wherein said processing program generator generates the processing program based on the tool path data added with the APT command in said tool path data generator. Adding a command and generating a program are evaluations or judgements that could be done with pen and paper, and thus grouped as mental processes in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
In regards to claims 3 and 10, wherein said display unit displays operations in a tree structure, and displays, in a case where one of the operations displayed in the tree structure is selected, a selection screen for selecting an operation type as an operation type of the selected operation from rough processing, middle finishing processing, and finishing processing, this limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity because it simply further limits the displayed selection screen and doesn’t particularly affect how the claimed processing activity is performed.
Similarly, in regards to claim 6, wherein said display unit displays operations in a tree structure, and displays, in a case where one of the operations displayed in the tree structure is selected, a selection screen for selecting an operation type as an operation type of the selected operation from rough processing, middle finishing processing, and finishing processing, this limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity because it simply further limits the displayed selection screen and doesn’t particularly affect how the claimed processing activity is performed.
In regards to claims 7, 8, 9, and 13, the claims further include additional the options for operation types, particularly rough processing, wherein the processor is configured to receive a selection and generate a program including different commands. In execution, the limitation is very similar to the independent claims, thus falling under selecting and setting require evaluations or judgments, which are grouped as mental processes in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), e.g., selecting an operation is an observation done in the human mind.
In regards to claims 11, 12, 14, and 15, displaying operations on a screen through tree structure is an extra solution activity.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea as in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d)
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent claims 1, 4 and 5 (and claim 1’s dependent claims 2-3 and 6, claim 4’s dependent claims 8 and 10-12, claim 5’s dependent claims 9, and 13-15) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d) because Claim 5 recites no additional elements and the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1 and 4), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use according to MPEP 2106.05(h) or represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g).
More specifically, the additional elements of: a display unit for displaying a selection screen and a computer or processing program generator or information processing apparatus, are generically recited computer elements in independent Claims 1 and 4 (and their respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a).
Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine according to MPEP 2106.05(b), effect a transformation according to MPEP 2106.05(c), provide a particular treatment or prophylaxis according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(f). For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 and 4 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d).
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d) because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental processes) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., “[0007] To achieve the above object, a program according to the present invention is an information processing program for generating a control program for performing machining including a plurality of processing steps, which causes a computer to execute a method” as claimed).
In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer according to MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims according to MPEP 2106.05(a). That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 4 and 5 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
Accordingly, independent Claims 1, 4 and 5 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05
None of Claims 1, 4 or 5 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05 for at least the following reasons.
Claim 5 recites no additional elements. The additional elements of: a display unit for displaying a selection screen and a computer or processing program generator or information processing apparatus, are generically recited computer elements in independent Claims 1 and 4 (and their respective dependent claims)
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) along with Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification:
[0007] To achieve the above object, a program according to the present invention is an information processing program for generating a processing program for performing machining including a plurality of processing steps, which causes a computer to execute a method, comprising: displaying a selection screen for selecting one of rough processing and finishing processing as an operation type with respect to at least one processing step included in the plurality of processing steps…
[0012] As shown in Fig. 1, the information processing apparatus 100 is an
apparatus that generates a processing program for performing machining
including a plurality of processing steps, and includes a display unit 101 and a processing program generator 102.
[0017] (Overall Arrangement of System)
The machine tool system 200 includes an information processing
apparatus 201 and a CNC (Computerized Numerical Control) machine tool 202.
[0023] The information processing apparatus 201 is a so-called CAM post- processor, and performs step editing for CL data (Cutter Location data) 230 as tool path data acquired from a CAM 240, and then generates the NC program 250 as a processing program to be used by the numerical control apparatus 220.
[0045] The present invention is applicable to a system including a plurality of devices or a single apparatus. The present invention is also applicable even when an information processing program for implementing the functions of example embodiments is supplied to the system or apparatus directly or from a remote site. Hence, the present invention also incorporates the program installed in a computer to implement the functions of the present invention by the computer, a medium storing the program, and a WWW (World Wide Web) server that causes a user to download the program. Especially, the present invention incorporates at least a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program that causes a computer to execute processing steps included in the above- described example embodiments.
The claimed display unit and computer or processing program generator or information processing apparatus are both generically described without structure or detailed drawings and only shown with schematic drawing, further evidencing that such computer components are well understood, routine and conventional.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, each of the claimed terms “display unit” “computer” “processing program generator” and “information processing apparatus” is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available technology, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the display unit or the computer or processing program generator or information processing apparatus. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2) and 2106.07(a)(III)). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications along with MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in independent claims 1 and 4 (and their dependent claims) amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) along with Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(a) along with McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, per MPEP 2106.05(a), the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the apparatus of Claims 1-6 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself or providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field according to MPEP 2106.05(a), or (ii) providing meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e).
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1, 4 and 5 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Moreover, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application as required by MPEP 2106.05.
Therefore, for at least the above reasons, none of the Claims 1-15 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-15 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kuriyama (US PG Pub No. 20220266348).
In regards to claim 1, Kuriyama discloses
an information processing apparatus (management device 200, fig. 1, 4) for generating a control program for controlling a machine tool to perform a plurality of processing steps ([0010], [0158]),
[0010] An aspect of the present disclosure may be implemented as a semiconductor integrated circuit that implements part or whole of a cutting tool... An aspect of the present disclosure may be implemented as a program for causing a computer to execute steps of a process in a communication method.
comprising:
a memory ([0158]: memory) storing one or more program instructions; and
[0158] The individual devices in the tool system according to the embodiment of the present disclosure each include a computer including a memory. An arithmetic processing unit, such as a CPU, in the computer reads out a program including some or all of steps in the following flowchart or sequence from the memory, and executes the program. The programs for the plurality of devices can be installed from the outside. The programs for the plurality of devices are each circulated in the state of being stored in a recording medium.
a processor ([0158]: arithmetic processing unit, CPU, with programs stored on a medium) configured to execute the one or more program instructions ([0158]) to:
receive a selection of one operation type from a plurality of operation types including at least finishing processing ([0102]); and
[0102] Specifically, the processing unit 220 transmits a plurality of chronological pieces of parameter information that are set in accordance with the types of machining operations performed by a single cutting tool 100 attached to a machining device, to the relevant cutting tool 100. Here, the types of machining operations mean a machining schedule including rough machining, semi-finish machining, finish machining, and the like, or the types of workpiece to be cut.
generate the control program including at least one command selected from a first command for setting an accuracy priority mode ([0147]),
[0147] In the case of performing measurement by using an acceleration sensor, which is an example of the sensor 10, a wider measurement (time prioritizing) range is set at the time of rough machining whereas a narrower measurement range (accuracy prioritizing) is set at the time of finish machining, for example.
a second command for making the feed rate constant, and
a third command for not permitting processing during magazine turning in the control program in a case in which the finishing processing ([0102]) is selected.
Examiner’s Note:
As written, the claim requires the prior art anticipate or make obvious “at least one command selected from a first…second…and third” when finishing processing is selected. As such, the prior art need disclose or make obvious one command.
In regards to claim 4, Kuriyama discloses
a non-transitory computer-readable medium ([0158]: memory; arithmetic processing unit, CPU, with programs stored on a medium) storing an information processing program for generating a control program forcontrolling a machine tool to perform a plurality of processing steps ([0010], [0158]), which causes a computer to execute a method, comprising:
receiving a selection finishing processing ([0102]) as an operation type among a plurality of operation types; and
generating the control program including at least one command selected from a first command for setting an accuracy priority mode ([0147]),
a second command for making the feed rate constant, and a third command for not permitting processing during magazine turning in the control program in a case in which the finishing processing ([0102]) is selected.
Examiner’s Note:
As written, the claim requires the prior art anticipate or make obvious “at least one command selected from a first…second…and third” when finishing processing is selected. As such, the prior art need disclose or make obvious one command.
In regards to claim 5, Kuriyama discloses
an information processing method ([0010], [0158]: the method executed by the CPU) for generating a control program for controlling a machine tool to perform a plurality of processing steps ([0010], [0158]), comprising:receiving a selection of finishing processing ([0102]) as an operation type among a plurality of operating types; and
generating the control program including at least one command selected from a first command for setting an accuracy priority mode ([0147]),
a second command for making the feed rate constant, and a third command for not permitting processing during magazine turning in the control program in a case in which the finishing processing ([0102]) is selected.
Examiner’s Note:
As written, the claim requires the prior art anticipate or make obvious “at least one command selected from a first…second…and third” when finishing processing is selected. As such, the prior art need disclose or make obvious one command.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JASON KHALIL HAWKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-5446. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 8-5PM.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/JASON KHALIL HAWKINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights