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 06/17/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 9 and 17 are independent claims. This Office Action is made Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claims 1, 9 and 17 are corresponding to one of four statutory categories including method, system, and method respectively under step 1. The claims 1, 9 and 17 similarly recites “a computer-implemented method, comprising: determining a mapping of source fields of documents formatted according to a first electronic data interchange (EDI) format to destination fields of documents formatted according to a second EDI format, wherein determining the mapping comprises selectively, based on determining a quantity of paths mapping a source field of the source fields to the destination fields: implementing a first machine learning model to determine a path of the paths to map the source field to a destination field of the destination fields based on determining that the quantity of paths is greater than one; or applying rule-based logic to determine the path to map the source field to the destination field without using the first machine learning model based on determining that the quantity of paths is equal to one; translating, by a second machine learning model, a mapping requirements specification (MRS) comprising a natural language description of conditional logic into code executable by a computer processor to implement the conditional logic for processing documents formatted according to the second EDI format; and generating, based on the mapping and the translating, a translation object used by an EDI translator to translate documents formatted according to the first EDI format into documents formatted according to the second EDI format, wherein the translation object includes source code indicating the source fields, the destination fields, the mapping, and the conditional logic”.
The limitation of the claims 1, 9 and 17 of “determining a mapping of source fields of documents formatted according to a first electronic data interchange (EDI) format to destination fields of documents formatted according to a second EDI format” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine a mapping of source fields of documents formatted according to a first electronic data interchange (EDI) format to destination fields of documents formatted according to a second EDI format with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 9 and 17 of “wherein determining the mapping comprises selectively, based on determining a quantity of paths mapping a source field of the source fields to the destination fields” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “selectively mapping” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may selectively map, based on determining a quantity of paths mapping a source field of the source fields to the destination fields with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 9 and 17 of “applying rule-based logic to output the path to map the source field to the destination field without using the first machine learning model based on determining that the quantity of paths is equal to one” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “applying logic” and “mapping” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may apply rule-based logic to output the path to map the source field to the destination field without using the first machine learning model based on determining that the quantity of paths is equal to one with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 9 and 17 of “executing a second machine learning model to translate a mapping requirements specification (MRS) comprising a natural language description of conditional logic into code executable by a computer processor to implement the conditional logic for processing documents formatted according to the second EDI format by inputting the MRS to the second machine learning model;” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “translating (in writing)” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may translate a mapping requirements specification (MRS) into code executable by a computer processor for processing documents formatted according to the second EDI format with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 9 and 17 of “a translation object used by an EDI translator to translate documents formatted according to the first EDI format into documents formatted according to the second EDI format” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “translating (in writing)” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may translate documents formatted according to the first EDI format into documents formatted according to the second EDI format with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1, 9 and 17 recite additional elements such as “executing a first machine learning model to output a path of the paths to map the source field to a destination field of the destination fields by inputting the source fields and destination fields to the first machine learning model based on determining that the quantity of paths is greater than one”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to apply it under MPEP § 2106.05(f): Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1, 9 and 17 recite additional elements such as “wherein the translation object includes source code indicating the source fields, the destination fields, the mapping, and the conditional logic”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1, 9 and 17 recite additional elements such as “outputting, based on the mapping and the translating, a translation object”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data outputting under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 2, 10 and 18 recite additional elements such as “the first machine learning model is a language model that determines the mapping based on natural language descriptions of the source and destination fields”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 3, 11 and 19 recite additional elements such as “the language model is a conditional transformer language model that controllably determines the mapping based on the natural language descriptions”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 4, 12 and 20 recite additional elements such as “the MRS includes a natural language description of context-specific requirements, and wherein the second machine learning model is a language model that translates the natural language description of context-specific requirements into code executable by the processor”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 5 and 13 recite additional elements such as “the language model is a conditional transformer language model that controllably translates the natural language descriptions of context-specific requirements”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 6 and 14 recite additional elements such as “the context-specific requirements are specific to system requirements of a computer system of a predetermined entity that exchanges documents formatted according to one or more EDI formats”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
The limitation of the claims 7 and 15 of “detecting a plurality of alternative paths mapping one source field of the document formatted according to the first EDI format to two or more destination fields of the document formatted according to the second EDI format and automatically selecting one of the plurality of alternative paths, and wherein the method further includes:” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “detecting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may detect a plurality of alternative paths mapping one source field of the document formatted according to the first EDI format to two or more destination fields of the document formatted according to the second EDI format and automatically selecting one of the plurality of alternative paths with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 7 and 15 recite additional elements such as “presenting a schematic of the mapping to a user via a user interface”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
The limitation of the claims 7 and 15 of “revising the mapping in response to user input via the user interface, wherein the user input revises the mapping by selecting a different one of the plurality of alternate paths” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “revising (changing the mapping)” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may revise the mapping in response to user input via the user interface, wherein the user input revises the mapping by selecting a different one of the plurality of alternate paths with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 8 and 16 recite additional elements such as “a specific source field is mapped to a corresponding destination field using rule-based logic in response to determining that there is an unambiguous, single path between the specific source and corresponding destination fields s”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 are also similar rejected under same rationale as cited above wherein these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These claims are merely further elaborate the mental process itself or providing additional definition of process which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their independent claims 1, 9 and 17 respectively.
Reasons for Allowance
4. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior-art, Mai (US PGPub 20140136961), in view of Moyers (US PGPub 20220100948), and further in view of Fabijancic (US Patent 11269822) failed to disclose of a computer-implemented method, comprising: determining a mapping of source fields of documents formatted according to a first electronic data interchange (EDI) format to destination fields of documents formatted according to a second EDI format, wherein determining the mapping comprises selectively, based on determining a quantity of paths mapping a source field of the source fields to the destination fields: implementing a first machine learning model to determine a path of the paths to map the source field to a destination field of the destination fields based on determining that the quantity of paths is greater than one; or applying rule-based logic to determine the path to map the source field to the destination field without using the first machine learning model based on determining that the quantity of paths is equal to one; translating, by a second machine learning model, a mapping requirements specification (MRS) comprising a natural language description of conditional logic into code executable by a computer processor to implement the conditional logic for processing documents formatted according to the second EDI format; and generating, based on the mapping and the translating, a translation object used by an EDI translator to translate documents formatted according to the first EDI format into documents formatted according to the second EDI format, wherein the translation object includes source code indicating the source fields, the destination fields, the mapping, and the conditional logic, as recited by the independent claim 1.
Regarding Claim 1, the closest prior-art found, Mai, Moyers and Fabijancic discloses of a computer-implemented method, comprising: determining a mapping of source fields of documents formatted according to a first electronic data interchange (EDI) format to destination fields of documents formatted according to a second EDI format, translating, by a second machine learning model, a mapping requirements specification (MRS) comprising a natural language description of conditional logic into code executable by a computer processor to implement the conditional logic for processing documents formatted according to the second EDI format; and generating, based on the mapping and the translating, a translation object used by an EDI translator to translate documents formatted according to the first EDI format into documents formatted according to the second EDI format, wherein the translation object includes source code indicating the source fields, the destination fields, the mapping, and the conditional logic.
However, the prior-art, Mai, Moyers and Fabijancic failed to disclose the following subject matter such as “based on determining a quantity of paths mapping a source field of the source fields to the destination fields: implementing a first machine learning model to determine a path of the paths to map the source field to a destination field of the destination fields based on determining that the quantity of paths is greater than one or applying rule-based logic to determine the path to map the source field to the destination field without using the first machine learning model based on determining that the quantity of paths is equal to one” in the claim 1.
Therefore, the prior-art, Mai, Moyers and Fabijancic failed to teach the method of claim 1, the system of claim 9 and the product of claim 17 as well as their dependent claims. Thus, claims1-20 contain allowable subject matter.
5. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims 1, 9 and 17 and their dependent claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the first argument that the amendment of the remark on pages 11-13 would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the examiner would like to point out that
The amendment such as “based on determining a quantity of paths mapping a source field of the source fields to the destination fields: implementing a first machine learning model to determine a path of the paths to map the source field to a destination field of the destination fields based on determining that the quantity of paths is greater than one; or applying rule-based logic to determine the path to map the source field to the destination field without using the first machine learning model based on determining that the quantity of paths is equal to one” is determined as a mental process, and in order to be patent-eligible under Step 2A Prong 2, two requirements should be met to determine if additional element is integrating the abstract idea into a practical application, 1) The specification should describe the claimed improvement to achieve the desired goal and 2) The claimed improvement should be reflected at least in the additional elements by specifying how the claimed improvement performs the additional element to improve functioning of a computer or existing technical field.
Also the examiner would like to point out that executing a machine learning to output a path, applying rule-base logic and executing a machine learning to translate the mapping requirements can be still considered as abstract idea such as mental process because requiring a general purpose computer to execute machine learning algorithm or rule-based logic in order to perform otherwise abstract idea can be still considered as abstract idea according to MPEP as follows.
C. A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process
Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures “can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary.” 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of “anonymous loan shopping” recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be “performed by humans without a computer”).
In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.
1. Performing a mental process on a generic computer. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed on a generic computer as an abstract idea is Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385, 126 USPQ2d 1498, 1504 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification in explaining that the claimed steps of voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation are “human cognitive actions” that humans have performed for hundreds of years. The claims therefore recited an abstract idea, despite the fact that the claimed voting steps were performed on a computer. 887 F.3d at 1385, 126 USPQ2d at 1504. Another example is Versata, in which the patentee claimed a system and method for determining a price of a product offered to a purchasing organization that was implemented using general purpose computer hardware. 793 F.3d at 1312-13, 1331, 115 USPQ2d at 1685, 1699. The Federal Circuit acknowledged that the claims were performed on a generic computer, but still described the claims as “directed to the abstract idea of determining a price, using organizational and product group hierarchies, in the same way that the claims in Alice were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, and the claims in Bilski were directed to the abstract idea of risk hedging.” 793 F.3d at 1333; 115 USPQ2d at 1700-01.
2. Performing a mental process in a computer environment. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed in a computer environment as an abstract idea is Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d at 1316-18, 120 USPQ2d at 1360. In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification when explaining that the claimed electronic post office, which recited limitations describing how the system would receive, screen and distribute email on a computer network, was analogous to how a person decides whether to read or dispose of a particular piece of mail and that “with the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper”. 838 F.3d at 1318, 120 USPQ2d at 1360. Another example is FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 120 USPQ2d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The patentee in FairWarning claimed a system and method of detecting fraud and/or misuse in a computer environment, in which information regarding accesses of a patient’s personal health information was analyzed according to one of several rules (i.e., related to accesses in excess of a specific volume, accesses during a pre-determined time interval, or accesses by a specific user) to determine if the activity indicates improper access. 839 F.3d. at 1092, 120 USPQ2d at 1294. The court determined that these claims were directed to a mental process of detecting misuse, and that the claimed rules here were “the same questions (though perhaps phrased with different words) that humans in analogous situations detecting fraud have asked for decades, if not centuries.” 839 F.3d. at 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d at 1296.
3. Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process. An example of a case in which a computer was used as a tool to perform a mental process is Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. The patentee in Mortgage Grader claimed a computer-implemented system for enabling borrowers to anonymously shop for loan packages offered by a plurality of lenders, comprising a database that stores loan package data from the lenders, and a computer system providing an interface and a grading module. The interface prompts a borrower to enter personal information, which the grading module uses to calculate the borrower’s credit grading, and allows the borrower to identify and compare loan packages in the database using the credit grading. 811 F.3d. at 1318, 117 USPQ2d at 1695. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to the concept of “anonymous loan shopping”, which was a concept that could be “performed by humans without a computer.” 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. Another example is Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brown (US PGPub 20030187741) 2 TABLE 2 field translation any data type conversions, logical value translations, and/or field format translations (e.g. upper/lower case, date format, etc.) business logic filters referential integrity rules mapping criteria rules for combining or splitting data in source fields to be written to one or more destination fields destination table and field identification of the destination field(s) for the mapping rule matching rules how will source records be matched.
Averbuch (US Patent 12072904) In turn, transformation code associated with the data transformation archetype may be executed to transform the source data to the target table based on the identified data transformation archetype. In this regard, a user may only provide a mapping from a source field to a target field, and the data transformation may be automated to provide reliable, scalable, and reduced error transformation of the data without requiring a data engineer or other highly skilled user to manually develop the transformation logic.
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 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