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 .
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, 6-11, 13-18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a mental process without significantly more.
Independent claims 1 recites:
“A non-transitory machine-readable medium storing a program executable by at least one processing unit of a device, the program comprising sets of instructions for:
storing a plurality of transactional data in a first storage configured to store transactional data in a structured manner;
transferring a subset of the plurality of transactional data from the first storage to a second storage, wherein the second storage is configured to store the subset of the plurality of transactional data in an unstructured manner;
storing metadata describing the transactional data, wherein the metadata comprises mappings between names of columns in the first storage and names of corresponding fields in the second storage;
removing the subset of the plurality of transactional data from the first storage;
after said removing, transmitting a graphical user interface that includes options for requesting a plurality of reports;
receiving a request for a report comprising data associated with an entity, the report from the plurality of reports;
in response to the request, retrieving a report definition associated with an entity, the report definition specifying, for each section of a report, a subset of columns from the first storage to include in a particular section;
determining a set of sections for the report;
for each section in the set of sections, generating a query for retrieving, from the second storage, a set of data associated with the entity and executing the query to retrieve the set of data, wherein generating the query comprises:
accessing the metadata to retrieve column information associated with columns specified in the report definition;
mapping names of the columns to field names in the second storage;
generating SELECT clauses for the field names;
generating the report comprising the set of sections, wherein each section in the generated report includes a different set of data retrieved from the second storages.”
Independent claims 8 and 15 recite similar subject matter.
The claims are directed towards a mental process because the active claimed steps appear to be directed to be data observation, data analysis, or data reporting steps. A human being equipped with a generic computer is capable of performing these steps.
The claims contain extra elements in the form of a “storing a plurality of transactional data…”, “transferring a subset of the plurality of transactional data…”, “storing metadata…”, “removing the subset of the plurality of transactional data…”, “transmitting a graphical user interface,” and “receiving a request for a report,” a “non-transitory machine-readable medium” and “a device” (claims 1 and 15), and a set of processing units (claim 15).
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the extra elements in the claims do not appear to improve the processing of a computer, require the use of a particular machine, or provide a technological solution to a technical problem.
“Storing” and “removing” data from a storage is insignificant extra-solution activity and is well known (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). The act of “transferring” and “transmitting” data elements, do not appear to improve the functioning of a computer or any technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). “Receiving” an input is merely pre-solution data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Also, displaying and using a GUI for input is just adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception as a form of mere data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The first and second storages, computer-readable medium, and processing units all appear to be generic computing elements. The recitation of generic hardware is little more than using a computer to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the claims contain no additional elements that integrate a practical application to the mental process.
The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Merely “storing” and “removing” information in memory is recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). The act of “transferring” and “transmitting” data elements is regarded as well understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). “Receiving” an input is merely pre-solution data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Also, displaying and using a GUI for input just adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception as a form of mere data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The generic computing elements (first and second storages, computer readable medium, and processing units are all generic computing elements and are little more than using a computer to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). None of the additional elements of the independent claims appear to, in part or in whole, improve the processing of a computer, require the use of a specific machine, or provide a technological solution to a technological problem.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13-14, 16-18, and 20-21 are similarly rejected as mental processes. The claims merely include additional data retrieval and analysis steps (claims 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 14, 16, 18, and 21) and data definitions (claims 3, 6, 10, 13, 17, and 20). None of the dependent claims appear to provide a practical application because none of the dependent claims appears to improve the processing of a computer, require the use of a specific machine, or provide a technological solution to a technological problem as defined in the specification. Similarly, none of the dependent claims contains additional claimed elements that appear to be significantly more than the abstract idea by, in part or in whole, improving the processing of a computer, requiring the use of a specific machine, or providing a technological solution to a technological problem.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greene et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2017/0316068) in view of Dwarampudi et al. (US Patent 10,599,527), in view of Coady et al. (US Patent 11,403,315), and further in view of Kiefer et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2010/0299327).
As to claim 1, Greene teaches a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing a program executable by at least one processing unit of a device, the program comprising sets of instructions for:
storing a plurality of transactional data in a first storage configured to store transactional data in a structured manner (see Greene paragraph [0035]. Structured records are stored in a source database);
transferring a subset of the plurality of transactional data from the first storage to a second storage, wherein the second storage is configured to store the subset of the plurality of transactional data in an unstructured manner (see Greene paragraph [0035]. Structured records are converted to unstructured records. These unstructured records are stored in a target database);
storing metadata describing the transactional data, wherein the metadata comprises mappings between names of columns in the first storage and names of corresponding fields in the second storage (see Greene paragraphs [0034] and [0049]-[0050]. There exists a field mapping database that stores field mapping files. The field mapping files describe “mapping requirements” between the structured records and the unstructured records. These are used to convert the data. Paragraphs [0030]-[0031] describe how the structured data exists in column format);
…
Greene does not teach:
removing the subset of the plurality of transactional data from the first storage;
after said removing, transmitting a graphical user interface that includes options for requesting a plurality of reports;
receiving a request for a report comprising data associated with an entity, the report from the plurality of reports;
in response to the request, retrieving a report definition associated with an entity, the report definition specifying, for each section of a report, a subset of columns from the first storage to include in a particular section;
determining a set of sections for the report;
for each section in the set of sections, generating a query for retrieving, from the second storage, a set of data associated with the entity and executing the query to retrieve the set of data, wherein generating the query comprises:
accessing the metadata to retrieve column information associated with columns specified in the report definition;
mapping names of the columns to field names in the second storage;
generating SELECT clauses for the field names;
generating the report comprising the set of sections, wherein each section in the generated report includes a different set of data retrieved from the second storages.”
Dwarampudi teaches:
removing the subset of the plurality of transactional data from the first storage (see Dwarampudi 28:33-54. When data in a storage is archived, it is removed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Greene by the teachings of Dwarampudi because Dwarampudi provides for archiving records that are no longer needed for active use, which will increase storage efficiency in Greene.
Coady teaches:
after said removing, transmitting a graphical user interface that includes options for requesting a plurality of reports (see Coady 5:38-51. A user may submit a project key via a graphical user interface. It is noted that there are multiple reports, each associated with project keys, see 1:41-2:4. Thus, the user interface includes “options” for “requesting a plurality of reports” because the user interface allows the user to submit a request for any report the user desires);
receiving a request for a report comprising data associated with an entity, the report from the plurality of reports (see Coady 5:31-56. The user submits a project key requesting a report. The report may be associated with a user, or entity);
in response to the request, retrieving a report definition associated with an entity, the report definition specifying, for each section of a report, a subset of [data] from the … storage to include in a particular section (see Coady 6:1-11 and 6:20-30. The system identifies a report template associated with the user. The remote template is a “report definition”);
determining a set of sections for the report (see Coady 6:20-59. Different sections of the report may be identified);
for each section in the set of sections, generating a query for retrieving, … a set of data associated with the entity and executing the query to retrieve the set of data (see Coady 6:60-7:18. A query is generated to receive the data), wherein generating the query comprises:
…
generating the report comprising the set of sections, wherein each section in the generated report includes a different set of data retrieved from the … storage (see Coady 7:37-43. The report is populated with the retrieved search results. The report may comprise different sets of data, see Figure 7. Kiefer, below, teaches retrieving data from the second storage).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Greene by the teachings of Coady because Coady provides for making use of the data stored in Greene by generating custom reports for a user. This will improve the ability of users to access data that they need from the database in Greene.
Kiefer teaches:
a subset of columns from the first storage to include in [results] (see Kiefer paragraph [0038] and [0097] and Figure 7. A first SQL query may be received. This query identifies columns in a first storage to retrieve results from);
generating a query for retrieving, from the second storage, a set of data associated with the entity and executing the query to retrieve the set of data (see Kiefer paragraph [0097] and Figure 7. The SQL query may be used to generate a second SQL/XML query that accesses data from a non-relational database), wherein generating the query comprises:
accessing the metadata to retrieve column information associated with columns specified in the report definition (see Kiefer paragraph [0058] and [0097] and Figure 7. A mapping table may be used to map column information in SQL query definition to an XML document);
mapping names of the columns to field names in the second storage (see Kiefer paragraph [0058] and [0097] and Figure 7);
generating SELECT clauses for the field names (see Kiefer paragraphs [0097] and Figure 7. Several clauses under the SELECT clause are generated containing field names);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Greene by the teachings of Kiefer because Kiefer provides for querying data in multiple different data formats. This will improve the ability of users to access data that they need from the database in Greene.
As to claim 2, Greene as modified by Coady teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 1, wherein determining the set of sections in the report comprises querying a second storage configured to store metadata associated with the entity in order to retrieve a set of section identifiers associated with the entity and determining a number of sections in the set of sections is equal to a number of unique sections identifiers in the set of section identifiers (see Coady 3:21-23 and 6:12-44 and Figure 1. Project key maps and report templates are stored in separate databases from the data records. Both of these elements are metadata associated with an entity that are used to retrieve section identifiers and a number of sections equal to a number unique section identifiers).
As to claim 3, Greene as modified by Coady teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 1, wherein generating the report comprises, for each section in the report, formatting a set of columns and storing the set of data in the set of columns (see Coady 7:55-8:12 for formatting data in the report in a specific manner for each section. Also see 9:12-31 and Figure 7, which show that each section of the report includes columns of data).
As to claim 4, Greene as modified by Coady as modified teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 3, wherein formatting the set of columns is based on the retrieved column information (see Coady 7:55-8:12. The report templates, which are stored separately from the data, contain formatting information. As noted in Figure 7 and 9:12-31, each of the sections may contain sets of columns).
As to claim 6, Greene as modified teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the first storage is a relational database and the second storage is a non-relational database (see Greene [0035]).
As to claim 7, Greene as modified by Coady teaches wherein the program further comprises a set of instructions for receiving a set of filter values from a client device, wherein, for each section in the set of sections, generating the query for retrieving, from the second storage, the set of data associated with the entity comprises including the set of filter values in the query (see Coady 6:60-7:18 for retrieving data from sections. See Kiefer paragraphs [0097] and Figure 7 for generating a query).
As to claims 8 and 15, see the rejection of claim 1.
As to claims 9 and 16, see the rejection of claim 2.
As to claims 10 and 17, see the rejection of claim 3.
As to claims 11 and 18, see the rejection of claim 4.
As to claims 13 and 20, see the rejection of claim 6.
As to claims 14, see the rejection of claim 7.
As to claim 21, Coady as modified teaches the system of claim 15 further comprising receiving a set of filter values from a client device, wherein, for each section in the set of sections, generating the query for retrieving, from the second storage, the set of data associated with the entity comprises including the set of filter values in the query (see Coady 6:60-7:18. The system generates a query that retrieves a set of data records associated with the project key and data record types associated with the report template. It is noted that the project key is submitted by the user as a set of filter values when requesting reports, see Coady 5:38-67. See Kiefer paragraphs [0058] and [0097] and Figure 7 for generating a query from a client and retrieving data from a second storage).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4 August 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Response to Rejection under 35 USC 101
Applicant argues that “the independent claims include limitations that address a technical solution to a technical problem. Namely, generating reports from data in unstructured data stores based on structured data that has been removed from a source structured data store. See e.g., Specification, para. 0032. This is a technical problem to which the claims provide an advantageous technical solution.”
Applicant continues, arguing that “For example, the independent claims include numerous technical features to arrive at a technical solution, including[:]”
“storing metadata describing the transactional data, wherein the metadata comprises mappings between names of columns in the first storage and names of corresponding fields in the second storage;
in response to a request, retrieving a report definition associated with an entity, the report definition specifying;
for each section of a report, a subset of columns from the first storage to include in a particular section; and
for each section in the set of sections, generating a query for retrieving, from the second storage, a set of data associated with the entity and executing the query to retrieve the set of data, wherein generating the query comprises:
accessing the metadata to retrieve column information associated with columns specified in the report definition, mapping names of the columns to field names in the second storage, and generating SELECT clauses for the field names to generate the report.”
Applicant asserts that these claimed steps are neither a mental process nor insignificant extra-solution activity. “
In response to this argument, it is noted that Applicant does not differentiate between which claim steps are mental process steps and which claimed steps are additional elements beyond the mental process. It appears as if Applicant is arguing that all of the listed steps are additional elements beyond the mental process. This is not accurate.
Of the listed steps, only the “storing” step appears to be an additional element beyond the mental process. It is noted that storing data is an extra element that is merely extra-solution activity(see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and is well understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Applicant has not identified, with citations to the specification, how the manner of storing as claimed is an improvement over previous storing technologies or how the claimed manner of storing improves a computing system.
The remaining steps – retrieving a report in response to a condition, the definition of the data included in the report, and generating a query comprising specified data elements – are merely data analysis and output steps that a human being equipped with a generic computer is capable of. Even if these claimed steps represent an improvement over previous technologies, which is not apparent from Applicant’s arguments, an improvement to a mental process remains a mental process and is thus ineligible for a patent under 35 USC 101.
Applicant is advised to include and identify additional elements in the claims beyond the mental process and explain how those additional elements integrate the mental process into a practical application or are, in part or as a whole, significantly more than the mental process. Applicant is advised to rely on citations to the specification to support any such arguments.
Applicant cited paragraph [0032] of the specification as providing “a technical problem to which the claims provide an advantageous technical solution.”
Examiner has reviewed paragraph [0032]. While paragraph [0032] describes the current invention at a high level, Examiner can find no description of any computer based advantage to the additional element of “storing” data. There does not appear to be any discussion regarding previous technology in the art that the current invention improves upon. In light of this, the additional element of “storing” data does not appear integrate the mental process into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As such, the additional elements do not overcome the rejection under 35 USC 101.
It is additionally noted that Applicant provided no citations to the specification supporting the assertion that the claimed method “address technological solutions to technical problems.” Examiner requests Applicant to identify, with a citation to the specification, the “problem” known in the art with “storing metadata” that Applicant’s claimed invention is solving.
Response to Rejection under 35 USC 103
Applicant argues that “Applicant asserts that claim 1 includes limitations that distinguish over the prior art. The Examiner relies on four (4) different references to formulate a rejection that appears to be a classic case of impermissible hindsight, where the claims are used as a guide for interpreting and combining references in ways one of ordinary skill in the art would not contemplate with only the references themselves.”
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant argues that “In particular, Greene is relied on as allegedly disclosing structured and unstructured records and mappings between them. Dwarampudi is relied on as allegedly disclosing archiving data. Coady is relied on as allegedly disclosing reporting. Here, the Examiner makes a fundamental error. The Examiner equates Coady's report template with the claimed "report definition." Claim 1 recites that "a report definition" is "associated with an entity," where the report definition specifies, for each section of a report, a subset of columns from the first storage to include in a particular section. As understood, Coady's report template is not associated with an entity, nor does it specify a subset of columns in a structured repository for each section of the report as claimed.”
In response to this argument, it is noted that the claim requires “retrieving a report definition associated with an entity …”
Coady indicates that a request for a report further comprises a user identifier that identifies a user associated with the report request (see 5:31-56). A user is an entity. The report definition retrieved returns information based on the entity requesting the report (see 6:12-19). Thus, the report definition is explicitly associated with an entity in Coady.
It is noted that the Office Action does not rely upon Coady to show a report template specifying a subset of columns to include a particular section of the report. Coady does return a subset of data to include in a specific report (see 6:1-11 and 6:20-30), but that data is not in the form of a subset of columns.
Kiefer is relied upon to show requesting a particular subset of columns to include in a set of results (see Kiefer paragraphs [0037] and [0097] and Figure 7. A first SQL query may be received. This query identifies columns in a first storage to retrieve results from).
Thus, to summarize, Coady explicitly shows “retrieving a report definition associated with an entity” by showing a user requesting a report definition associated with an entity (a user) (see Coady 5:31-56). Coady shows wherein the report contains a specific subset of data associated with a specific entity (user) (see 6:1-11 and 6:20-30). Kiefer shows that a subset of data may be requested in the form of a particular subset of columns (see Kiefer paragraphs [0037] and [0097] and Figure 7). Combined, the references teach the claimed limitations to the extent claimed.
Applicant is reminded that unclaimed features from the specification, such as a definition for the “entity” element, receive no patentable weight until claimed.
Applicant continues, arguing that “Just as importantly, while Coady discloses generating a query, claim 1 recites that "for each section in the set of sections, generating a query for retrieving, from the second storage, a set of data associated with the entity and executing the query to retrieve the set of data. Specifically, the claimed report definition references a structured repository, but the query is in an unstructured repository. Accordingly, claim 1 includes the additional limitation that the query maps names of the columns to field names in the second storage. These features are not disclosed in Coady or any other cited reference.”
In response to this argument, it is noted that Coady is not relied upon to teach the subset of columns nor mapping the names of the columns to field names in an unstructured storage. Coady teaches generating a report comprising a set of sections and retrieving data from those sections (see Coady 7:37-43).
Kiefer is relied upon to show retrieving data from the second storage, showing an SQL query that is use to generate an SQL/XML query that accesses data from a non-relational database (see Kiefer paragraph [0097] and Figure 7). Kiefer also shows mapping names of the columns to field names in the second database (see Kiefer paragraph [0097] and Figure 7).
Thus, the combined references do teach the claimed subject matter.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that “As understood, Kiefer discloses a method for generating SQL/XML statements, which allow for queries to relational databases to include XML capabilities. Kiefer, para. [0005]. This is important for two reasons. First, Kiefer does not disclose queries for each section of a report (from the claimed report definition) that maps names of columns (from a structure data store) to field names in a second (unstructured) data store as claimed. Kiefer is not on point for that reason alone.”
It is noted that Coady teaches generating a query for retrieving information needed for different sections of a report (see Coady 6:1-11 and 6:20-30). Thus, a query is generated for each section of the report. Coady also teaches wherein each section of the report is populated iteratively (see Coady 7:34-36). Kiefer teaches to generate a query and to map names of columns to field names in a second unstructured data store (see Kiefer paragraph [0097] and Figure 7).
In response to this argument, it is noted that the claims do not require that a separate and distinct query be created for each section of a plurality of sections. Rather, the claims only require generating a query that retrieves data for each section. If a single query is generated that satisfies the information needed for all sections, then a query is generated “for each section.”
Applicant is reminded that unclaimed features from the specification do not receive patentable weight until claimed.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant continues, arguing that “Just as importantly, since Kiefer is directed at a method for generating SQL/XML (structured and unstructured) in a single database, one of ordinary skill in the art would not use Kiefer to arrive at the subject matter of claim 1 using two different data stores because Kiefer contemplates a single data store. In other words, Kiefer cannot be combined with the other references to arrive at the subject matter of claim 1 because Kiefer teaches away from the claimed subject matter.”
In response to Applicant’s argument, it is noted that Kiefer is relied upon for the conversion of a structured query to an unstructured query. Greene teaches wherein structured records are stored in a source database and converted to unstructured records in a target database (see Greene paragraph [0035]). Thus, Greene teaches two databases.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
It is noted that nothing in Kiefer prohibits the existence of multiple databases. As such, nothing in Kiefer teaches away from the combination.
Greene teaches wherein data may exist in two databases, one in a structured format and another in unstructured format. Coady teaches to generate reports upon request from data stored in a data source. Kiefer teaches to receive an SQL query to query data in an SQL format and converts it to an SQL/XML query that is able to retrieve data in an unstructured format. The references combined render the claimed subject matter obvious.
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 CHARLES D ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-3938. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Neveen Abel-Jalil can be reached at 571-270-0474. 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.
/CHARLES D ADAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152