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
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 30 April 2026 has been entered.
This Continued Examination Office Action is in reply to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 30 April 2026.
Claims 1, 9, 10 have been amended.
Claims 1-11 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
In the previous office action, Claims 1-11 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Applicants have not amended Claims 1-11 to provide statutory support and the rejection is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 14 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks regarding the 35 USC § 101 rejection for Claims 1-11, Applicants argue that: (1) the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, and even if they were, they would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Commensurate with the 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG), the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (“October 2019 Update”) and updated with the addition of new Examples 47-49 published July 2024, the claims are continued analyzed based on these new guidelines and is detailed below in the maintained rejection under 35 USC 101. The claims require "give... the evaluation value to the worker," track "personality or operation accuracy," and organize workplace evaluations based on "work items”. Because the claims recite mathematical calculations, human evaluation/judgment, and the management of personal/business interactions, the claims do recite judicial exceptions in the form of abstract ideas. Additionally, independent “method” Claim 9 still does not have proper computer architecture components to support the claim limitations for Step 1. As seen below in the maintained rejection, further clarification is cited and the rejection is maintained.
In the remarks/arguments regarding the previous prior art rejection for Claims 1-11, the arguments are moot based on a new ground of rejection. It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123. The Examiner has a duty and responsibility to the public and to Applicant to interpret the claims as broadly as reasonably possible during prosecution. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1 393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969).
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims explicitly recite "receiving... evaluation information... evaluated by the supervisor," "calculate... an evaluation value," and "determine... whether communication is performed. The claims as a whole recite certain grouping of an abstract idea and are analyzed in the following step process:
Step 1: Claims 1-8, 10, 11 are each focused to statutory categories of invention, namely “apparatus; non-transitory computer-readable recording medium” sets. However, “method” Claim 9 still does not have proper computer architecture components to support the claim limitations. Although as amended, the “displaying” and “terminal” are not fully defined in the claims to support the “receiving; calculating; giving; transmitting” steps are accomplished. Despite this failure to pass Step 1, the Examiner proceeds to the next steps of the analysis.
Step 2A: Prong One: Claims 1-11 recite limitations that set forth the abstract ideas, namely, the claims as a whole recite the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because the claims encompass processing information by:
“displaying, on a supervisor terminal carried by a supervisor of a workplace, worker identification information and a map showing location information on a worker together with a relative positional relationship between the supervisor and the worker;
receiving, from the supervisor terminal, evaluation information on the worker including a work status indicating personality or operation accuracy of the worker evaluated by the supervisor using the worker identification information and the map;
calculate, as a token, an evaluation value that corresponds to a work item indicated by the evaluation information;
give, as the token, the evaluation value to the worker indicated by the worker identification information;
transmit history information that includes the worker identification information, a date and time at which the token is given, and the evaluation value to an information recording apparatus that records the history information on the token, and generate new blockchain information by adding the history information to blockchain information for each workplace; and
determine, from location information on the supervisor and the location information on the worker, whether communication is performed between the supervisor and the worker”
As seen in the above claim limitations for representative Claim 1, the claims fall under the categories:
Certain methods of organizing human activity: Managing personal behavior or relationships/interactions between people (teaching, observing, and following rules). Additionally, they touch upon fundamental economic/commercial principles or legal interactions (such as employee evaluation rules, performance ratings, and work incentive tracking) The recitation of steps of evaluating a worker's "personality or operation accuracy; calculating as a token” based on work items, and giving that token as a reward are fundamentally methods of managing or incentivizing human behavior and falls under managing personal behavior or commercial/legal relationships (managing worker performance and compensation/incentives). Displaying worker locations on a map is a visual representation of data, which is an abstract concept. The claims require "give... the evaluation value to the worker," track "personality or operation accuracy," and organize workplace evaluations based on "work items. Managing personal behavior or relationships/interactions between people (teaching, observing, and following rules). Additionally, they touch upon fundamental economic/commercial principles or legal interactions (such as employee evaluation rules, performance ratings, and work incentive tracking).
Mental processes: concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The claims explicitly recite "receiving... evaluation information... evaluated by the supervisor," "calculate... an evaluation value," and "determine... whether communication is performed." Recitation of the act of "evaluating" a worker's personality or accuracy based on visual information (map and ID) is a subjective judgment that can be performed in the human mind. Even when performed by a supervisor using a terminal, the core evaluation process is a mental act. The claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) because its core steps of evaluating worker performance and rewarding them with tokens fall squarely into Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (managing human behavior) and Mental Processes (subjective evaluation). Humans can and routinely evaluate someone’s personality, calculate a corresponding value, and judge whether two people are interacting based on their positions.
Mathematical Concepts: The claims dictate calculating "calculate, as a token, an evaluation value that corresponds to a work item".
See MPEP § 2106.04(a) II C. Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2A Prong one. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception.
Prong Two: Claims 1-11: With regard to this step of the analysis (as explained in MPEP § 2106.04(d)), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Independent Claims 1, 10 recite additional elements directed to “apparatus; processor; non-transitory computer-readable recording medium; terminal” etc. (e.g., see Applicants’ published Specification ¶’s 6-8, 24-39). Therefore, the claims contain computer components that are cited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components, and furthermore do not amount to an improvement to a computer or any other technology, and thus are ineligible. “method” Claim 9 does not have proper computer architecture components to support the claim limitations. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) (h).
Step 2B: As explained in MPEP § 2106.05, Claims 1-11 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea nor recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements of “apparatus; processor; non-transitory computer-readable recording medium; terminal”, etc. are generically-recited computer-related elements that amount to a mere instruction to “apply it” (the abstract idea) on the computer-related elements (see MPEP § 2106.05 (f) – Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). These additional elements in the claims are recited at a high level of generality and are merely limiting the field of use of the judicial exception (see MPEP §2106.05 (h) – Field of Use and Technological Environment). There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the function of a computer or improves any other technology. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components, and furthermore do not amount to an improvement to a computer or any other technology, and thus are ineligible. “method” Claim 9 does not have proper computer architecture components to support the claim limitations.
The Examiner interprets that the steps of the claimed invention both individually and as an ordered combination result in Mere Instructions to Apply a Judicial Exception (see MPEP §2106.05 (f)). These claims recite only the idea of a solution or outcome with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism used for accomplishing the result. Here, the claims utilize a computer or other machinery (e.g., see Applicants’ published Specification ¶’s 24-39) regarding using existing computer processors as well as program products comprising machine-readable media for carrying or having machine-executable instructions or data structures stored. “system 100-1” in its ordinary capacity for performing tasks (e.g., to receive, analyze, transmit and display data) and/or use computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice and certain methods of organization human activities) and does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Software implementations are accomplished with standard programming techniques with logic to perform connection steps, processing steps, comparison steps and decisions steps. These claims are directed to being a commonplace business method being applied on a general-purpose computer (see Alice Corp. Pty, Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014)); Versata Dev. Group, Inc., v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 D.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)) and require the use of software such as via a server to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer. “method” Claim 9 does not have proper computer architecture components to support the claim limitations. Based on all these, Examiner finds that when viewed either individually or in combination, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) that raise to the high standards of eligibility to transform the abstract idea(s) into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea(s) such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea(s) itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea exception) without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elhawary et al. (Elhawary) (2019/0343429) in view of Ahmadi-Assalemi, Gabriela, et al. "Federated blockchain-based tracking and liability attribution framework for employees and cyber-physical objects in a smart workplace." 2019 IEEE 12th International Conference on Global Security, Safety and Sustainability (ICGS3). IEEE, 2019.
With regard to Claims 1, 9, 10, Elhawary teaches an information management apparatus/method/non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having stored therein an information management program causing a computer to execute processing (A computer based method is provided for indicating risk during physical activities, in which the method receives a first signal from a wearable device) comprising: a processor configured to (see at least paragraphs 20, 89-93):
displaying, on a supervisor (manager; supervisor) terminal (terminal devices 195) carried by a supervisor of a workplace, worker identification information (Information about the worker's location may allow for identifying additional worker activity as well as worker physical activity with increased accuracy. For example, if the platform detects that a worker has entered a region for which he is not authorized, the device may trigger an alert to the worker or the worker's supervisor) and a map showing location information (location; Activity logs for individual workers may be reviewed to evaluate, for example, the number of times a worker performs a specified activity, and how long the activity takes, among other data points. This information may then be mapped and optimized. For example, mapping and breaking down the tasks performed by a warehouse associate who is fulfilling an order will show them picking up an order in a first location in warehouse, walking to a specific shelf location to check inventory, spending three minutes searching for the specific item, walking to a boxing and shipping location, and leaving the box on a pallet for pick-up by a package delivery company) on a worker together with a relative positional relationship between the supervisor and the worker (Information about the worker's location may allow for identifying additional worker activity as well as worker physical activity with increased accuracy. For example, if the platform detects that a worker has entered a region for which he is not authorized, the device may trigger an alert to the worker or the worker's supervisor) (see at least paragraphs 87, 202, 211, 222-229):
receive, from the supervisor terminal (the implementation, and storing records of activity performed by workers 110, 140, 172. In some embodiments, signals generated and transmitted by the wearable device 190 are received and processed by the server 310. In some embodiments, results of the methods discussed below are generated and retained by the wearable devices 190 and are used to provide immediate feedback to workers 110, 140, 172. In some embodiments, the results are transmitted to additional terminal devices 195 to be accessed by a third party, such as a manager, or by the workers themselves), evaluation information on the worker (evaluating results of physical activities of workers. Such a method may comprise receiving a first signal from a wearable device indicative of physical characteristics of the wearable device over time and identifying a plurality of signal segments each corresponding to at least one of several expected categories of physical activities. Each such signal segment may then be correlated with a corresponding category of physical activity) including a work status (the status of such machines may be provided to the worker 4000 when the worker approaches that particular machine; Environmental data may also provide information about the location and status of equipment. For example, a worker may be provided with information about the last known worker of specific equipment, or a date of most recent maintenance on the equipment. Workers may be provided with alerts if moving pieces of equipment are getting too close and should be avoided. Similarly, the system can also track workers of specific machinery, to monitor chain of custody if equipment breaks or to find a most common worker for equipment) indicating personality or operation accuracy ((this may be compared (500) to the same metric for a known weight such that the weight of an object may be inferred by comparing the angular velocity of a specified lift by a worker to an angular velocity associated with a lift for a known weight by the same worker. The accuracy of this measurement may be further improved by evaluating data related to the angle of the back sensor 190b and similarly mapping it to known angles for known weights by the same worker)) of the worker evaluated by the supervisor (the wearable device 190 may detect individual motions, such that the device may detect unsafe postures, such as high-risk bends, twists, and reaches, as well as jumping off of vehicles or slips, trips, and falls. It can also detect safe postures, such as squats. Using algorithms that can distinguish different activities, the log can provide a mapping of all activities of a workers day (or other period of time) in order to map what percentage of the time is performed in safe postures, unsafe postures, driving a forklift or other vehicle, taking a break, walking, etc.) using the worker identification information (Information about the worker's location may allow for identifying additional worker activity as well as worker physical activity with increased accuracy. For example, if the platform detects that a worker has entered a region for which he is not authorized, the device may trigger an alert to the worker or the worker's supervisor) and the map (The logs generated for multiple users could be mapped to a floor plan or map of the facility to see what activities occur at each location, and to optimize the design of the location for the activities that take place there. Risky areas can be mapped in order to help prioritize which areas of a facility should be redesigned) (see at least paragraphs 40-53, 87, 143, 152, 191-195, 230, 249);
calculate, as a token (custom content may be automatically shared with workers based on worker data, such as personalized training videos, safety or productivity improvement tips, praise, reward notifications), an evaluation value (method for evaluating results of physical activities of workers. Such a method may comprise receiving a first signal from a wearable device indicative of physical characteristics of the wearable device over time and identifying a plurality of signal segments each corresponding to at least one of several expected categories of physical activities. Each such signal segment may then be correlated with a corresponding category of physical activity) that corresponds to a work item (job assigned to the wearer; physical activities) indicated by the evaluation information (An activity risk metric is then generated and associated with each signal segment, and a log of physical activity performed by the user wearing the wearable device is generated. The log defines the category of physical activity, the activity risk metric, and the time for each signal segment evaluated) (see at least paragraphs 20-55, 344);
give, as the token (custom content may be automatically shared with workers based on worker data, such as personalized training videos, safety or productivity improvement tips, praise, reward notifications), the evaluation value to the worker indicated by the worker identification information (method then repeats the detection and analysis to identify and evaluate several physical activities. The method then modifies the risk score of the worker based on the activity risk metric calculated and calculates an insurance premium for the worker based on the risk score; In some embodiments, the worker is a member of a group of workers, and each worker in the group is assigned an independent risk score. The method then calculates and modifies risk scores for each worker and calculates an insurance premium for the group based on the individual risk scores of the workers; In some embodiments, the method comprises calculating a cumulative risk metric indicative of a risk level from multiple physical activities over time and modifies the risk score of the worker based on the cumulative risk metric (see at least paragraphs 20-55, 344);
transmit history information that includes the worker identification information (if a particular job is categorized as high risk for a particular worker, based on wearable device data and previous history data, the amount of time the worker spends on that task can be optimized. Similarly, if a worker is engaged in a high risk activity, the data can be analyzed in real time to determine if a worker should change takes based on the rate of high risk postures and energy expenditures; historical injury data; risk profiles and movement patterns), a date and time at which the token is given (time period), and the evaluation value to an information recording apparatus that records the history information on the token (history data), and generate new information by adding the history information to information for each workplace (if a particular job is categorized as high risk for a particular worker, based on wearable device data and previous history data, the amount of time the worker spends on that task can be optimized. Similarly, if a worker is engaged in a high risk activity, the data can be analyzed in real time to determine if a worker should change takes based on the rate of high risk postures and energy expenditures) (see at least paragraphs 20-35, 198, 258, 338-344);
determine, from location information on the supervisor and the location information on the worker, whether communication (A mesh network may be implemented using beacons and workplace equipment, as discussed herein. Communications may leverage zigbee, Bluetooth Low Energy, Bluetooth 5, or WiFi direct, among other communication protocols. Such mesh networks can provide bidirectional information to the wearable device 4010. For example, it may alert workers in case of an emergency, it can interact with facility systems, and workers can send alerts to other workers, as well as to the facility itself. The mesh network may also serve as a redundant form of communication to insure delivery of messages and link facility equipment to communicate safety issues) is performed between the supervisor and the worker (If the presence of the safety equipment cannot be confirmed, the method may trigger an alert (5070) either to the worker or to a supervisor warning that the activity should not proceed until the safety equipment is used. For example, if a worker is at altitude, but cannot be confirmed to be wearing a harness, an alert may be triggered by the method. In some embodiments, the method may prevent further activity by the worker. For example, if the worker is operating equipment without proper safety equipment, such as a worker using or preparing to use a forklift without proper harnessing, the wearable device may transmit a signal to the forklift to turn off, or may prevent the forklift from turning on) (see at least paragraphs 239-243);
Elhawary doess not specifically teach blockchain. Ahmadi-Assalemi et al. teaches blockchain (Blockchain Technology Integration) in analogous art of tracking of object behaviour within Smart Controlled Business Environments (SCBE) to support resilience by enabling proactive insider threat detection for the purposes of: “We integrate BC technology to achieve Forensic-enabled proactive insider threat detection. Furthermore, we apply Bluetooth technology to a Proximity Monitoring model to demonstrate behaviour patterns of employees in the workspace. We utilize empirical data collected from a Bluetooth-based Proximity implemented in a real company” (see Abstract; sections III., C.-D.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include Federated Blockchain-based Tracking and Liability Attribution Framework for Employees and Cyber-Physical Objects in a Smart Workplace as taught by Ahmadi-Assalemi et al. in the system of Elhawary, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
With regard to Claim 2, Elhawary teaches wherein the processor is configured to perform at least one of evaluation of the worker or a purchase of an article that is used in a workplace of the worker, by using the token that is registered in the history information (see at least paragraphs 337-340).
With regard to Claim 3, Elhawary teaches:
receive the worker identification information that is read from an article carried by the worker or that is transmitted from a terminal device of the worker, and the evaluation information in which the work status is evaluated for each of work items in a workplace of the worker (see at least paragraphs 222-229);
calculate, as the token, an evaluation value that corresponds to the work item indicated by the evaluation information, and give, as the token, the evaluation value to the worker indicated by the worker identification information (see at least paragraphs 222-229);
transmit the history information that includes the worker identification information, a date and time at which the token is given, and the evaluation value to an information recording apparatus that stores the history information on the token by using the blockchain (see at least paragraphs 222-229, 337-340).
With regard to Claim 4, Elhawary teaches wherein the processor is configured to receive the evaluation information in which the work status is evaluated by using the map in which the worker who is present in a floor that is selected from among a same floor, an upper floor, and a lower floor with reference to the supervisor is displayed (see at least paragraphs 143, 191, 195).
With regard to Claim 5, Elhawary teaches wherein the processor is configured to transmit the history information on the worker for a predetermined period to a terminal device of the worker if the token is given or a query is issued by the worker (see at least paragraphs 86-88).
With regard to Claim 6, Elhawary teaches wherein the processor is configured to transmit setting information related to at least one of a method of calculating the token or a method of giving the token to a terminal device of an administrator of the information management apparatus in response to a request from the administrator (see at least paragraphs 86-88, 162, 202).
With regard to Claim 7, Elhawary teaches wherein the processor is configured to give a notice for requesting a supervisor to give feedback of evaluation on the worker if occurrence of communication between the worker and a supervisor who has evaluated a work status of the worker is detected based on location information on the worker (see at least paragraphs 86-91, 162, 202).
With regard to Claim 8, Elhawary teaches: identify a horizontal position, a height position, and a posture of the worker by using location information that is transmitted from a terminal device carried by the worker; and detect occurrence of communication between the worker and the supervisor who has evaluated the work status of the worker, based on the identified horizontal position, the identified height position, and the identified posture (see at least paragraphs 55, 151-153, 191, 205).
With regard to Claim 11, Elhawary teaches wherein the processor is configured to evaluate the worker using the token registered in the history information, and generate an evaluation sheet for calculating a salary (payment) and a bonus of the worker (a bonus payment may be applied to a wearer's account if the cumulative risk metric stays below the cumulative risk threshold for a defined period of time; the risk associated with performance of activities by workers can be used to adjust payments or assign bonuses to workers. Accordingly, the wearable device can be used to monitor an employee's postures while engaged in manual labor, and to collect data based on the type of motions made, and the quantity and frequency of motions. The data may then be compared to industry quotas or other comparable individuals and then used to affect variable compensation or job assignments) (see at least paragraphs 31-39).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Garcia et al. (US 2008/0046305)
Yang, Mengmeng, et al. "A blockchain-based location privacy-preserving crowdsensing system." Future Generation Computer Systems 94 (2019): 408-418.
Hayashizaki et al. (JP 2021086394 A)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS L MANSFIELD whose telephone number is (571)270-1904. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thurs, alt. Fri. (9-6).
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
THOMAS L. MANSFIELD
Examiner
Art Unit 3623
/THOMAS L MANSFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights