DETAILED ACTION
1. This communication is in response to the Application No. 18/381,938 filed on October 19, 2023 in which Claims 1-25 are presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner’s Remarks
3. Examiner notes that the Independent claims recite the limitations “[…] said generating the intermediate-level data structure comprising performing the first set of computations” and “[…] said generating the quantum circuit comprising performing the second set of computations” – however, it is not evident by the currently drafted claim language, how an intermediate-level data structure and a quantum circuit may be “generated” simply by performing a first/second set of computations, leading to a broad interpretation. Moreover, using broadest reasonable interpretation, it may be interpreted that both the “generating […] an intermediate-level data structure” and “generating […] a quantum circuit” comprise mere mathematical processes under 35 U.S.C. 101, considering the subsequent limitations which specify that the “generating” steps comprise performing a first/second set of computations without significantly more. Examiner asserts that the generation of a quantum circuit cannot comprise only the step of performing a second set of computations without significantly more. Applicant is advised to amend the claim language to better outline how the generating of the intermediate-level data structure and the quantum circuit are performed and how they incorporate (not only comprise) the performing of the first/second set of computations, in order to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 – abstract idea. Applicant is additionally advised to avoid amending in a way that conflicts with US Patent 12,056,578 to prevent potential double patenting issues, as the language of both applications are similar – the instant claims should be differentiated from that of the patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1:
Step 1: Claim 1 is a method type claim. Therefore, Claims 1-15 are directed to either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
2A Prong 1: 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. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by mathematical calculation but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
dynamically selecting a distribution of a compilation process of a quantum program between a first software compiler and a second software compiler, the second software compiler is different from the first software compiler, said selecting comprising selecting to perform a first set of computations of the compilation process at the first software compiler, and to perform a second set of computations of the compilation process at the second software compiler (mental process – dynamically selecting a distribution of a compilation of a quantum program between a first and second software compiler may be performed manually by a user observing/analyzing the types of computations comprising the quantum program and accordingly using judgement/evaluation to select a first set of computations of the compilation process to be performed by the first compiler and to select a second set of computations of the compilation process to be performed by the second compiler)
generating, at the first software compiler, an intermediate-level data structure based on the quantum program, said generating the intermediate-level data structure comprising performing the first set of computations (mental process – generating an intermediate-level data structure based on the quantum program may be performed manually by a user observing/analyzing the quantum program and its respective computations and accordingly using judgement/evaluation to perform a first set of computations and generate an intermediate-level data structure (directed acyclic graph per instant claim 7) with the aid of pen and paper)
generating, by the second software compiler, a quantum circuit implementing the intermediate-level data structure, said generating the quantum circuit comprising performing the second set of computations (mathematical process – generating a quantum circuit implementing the intermediate-level data structure may be performed by mathematical process in which the second set of computations is performed and accordingly using mathematical processes to generate/define a logical (not necessarily physical) quantum circuit (i.e., defining initial state vectors, representing logic gates/matrices, applying different operations such as matrix multiplication or tensor products, and/or calculating measurement probabilities – as supported by the claim language which states that the quantum circuit is generated by performing the second set of computations of the program without significantly more))
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
providing the intermediate-level data structure from the first software compiler to the second software compiler (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g))
providing the quantum circuit to a quantum execution platform for execution thereby (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
providing the intermediate-level data structure from the first software compiler to the second software compiler (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that merely “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” is a well-understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed limitation is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer)
providing the quantum circuit to a quantum execution platform for execution thereby (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that merely “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” is a well-understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed limitation is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer)
For the reasons above, Claim 1 is rejected as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. This rejection applies equally to dependent claims 2-15. The additional limitations of the dependent claims are addressed below.
Regarding Claim 2:
Step 2A Prong 1:
See the rejection of Claim 1 above, which Claim 2 depends on.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B:
wherein the first software compiler is a batch compiler configured to be executed once for the quantum program, wherein the second software compiler is an online compiler configured to be executed for every execution of the quantum program on the quantum execution platform (Field of Use – limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; in this case specifying that the first compiler is a batch compiler and the second compiler is an online compiler does not integrate the exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more – See MPEP 2106.05(h))
Accordingly, under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3:
Step 2A Prong 1:
See the rejection of Claim 1 above, which Claim 3 depends on.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B:
wherein said dynamically selecting is performed at the first software compiler (Field of Use – limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; in this case specifying that dynamically selecting is performed at the first compiler does not integrate the exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more – See MPEP 2106.05(h))
Accordingly, under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 4:
Step 2A Prong 1:
See the rejection of Claim 1 above, which Claim 4 depends on.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B:
wherein said dynamically selecting is based on a number of times that the quantum program is scheduled to be executed by the quantum execution platform (Field of Use – limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; in this case specifying that dynamically selecting is based on a number of times that the quantum program is scheduled to be executed does not integrate the exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more – See MPEP 2106.05(h))
Accordingly, under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 5:
Step 2A Prong 1:
See the rejection of Claim 1 above, which Claim 5 depends on.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B:
wherein said dynamically selecting is based on at least one of: an amount of available classical computation resources available for the first software compiler, an estimated amount of available classical computation resources that will be available for the second software compiler, and an estimated amount of available quantum resources for the execution of the quantum program (Field of Use – limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; in this case specifying that the dynamically selecting is based on at least one of an amount of available classical computation resources available for the first compiler, an estimated amount of available classical computation resources that will be available for the second compiler, and an estimated amount of available quantum resources for the execution of the quantum program does not integrate the exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more – See MPEP 2106.05(h))
Accordingly, under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 6:
Step 2A Prong 1:
See the rejection of Claim 1 above, which Claim 6 depends on.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B:
wherein said dynamically selecting is based on at least one of: an estimated utility of the distribution of the compilation process, and an estimated cost of implementing the distribution of the compilation process, the estimated cost is computed based on a cost function (Field of Use – limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; in this case specifying that the dynamically selecting is based on at least one of an estimated utility and an estimated cost does not integrate the exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more – See MPEP 2106.05(h))
Accordingly, under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 7:
Step 2A Prong 1:
See the rejection of Claim 1 above, which Claim 7 depends on.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B:
wherein the intermediate-level data structure is a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG), the DAG comprises nodes and edges, wherein each node of the DAG represents a functionality that the quantum program is designed to implement in a quantum circuit, wherein each edge of the DAG corresponds to a precedence constraint between two functionalities, wherein the DAG is a non- executable representation of the quantum program (Field of Use – limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; in this case specifying that the intermediate-level data structure is a DAG does not integrate the exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more – See MPEP 2106.05(h))
Accordingly, under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 8:
Step 2A Prong 1: See the rejection of Claim 7 above, which Claim 8 depends on.
selecting an implementation of a first node of the DAG […] selecting an implementation of a second node of the DAG (mental process – selecting an implementation of a first/second node of a DAG may be performed manually by a user observing/analyzing the DAG and accordingly using judgement/evaluation to select an implementation of a first/second node of the DAG, based on said analysis)
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B:
Accordingly, under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9:
Step 2A Prong 1:
See the rejection of Claim 7 above, which Claim 9 depends on.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B:
wherein the compilation process comprises at least one of: selecting an order between the nodes of the DAG, managing qubit allocations and uncomputations, selecting an allocation of physical qubits to logical qubits, generating a Quantum Error Correction (QEC) assignment, and selecting swap chain implementations (Field of Use – limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; in this case specifying that the compilation process comprises at least one of selecting an order, managing qubit allocations, selecting an allocation, generating a QEC assignment, and selecting swap chain implementations does not integrate the exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more – See MPEP 2106.05(h))
Accordingly, under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 10:
Step 2A Prong 1: See the rejection of Claim 1 above, which Claim 10 depends on.
determining a Constraint Satisfaction Problem (CSP) that corresponds to the quantum program, the CSP comprises variables, domains and constraints, each variable of the variables has a corresponding domain in the domains that defines one or more potential values of the variable, the constraints define one or more constraints on values of the variables or portion thereof, the constraints comprise global resource constraints of the quantum execution platform, the domains include a domain of a variable, wherein a solution of the CSP defines a respective quantum circuit that implements the quantum program (mathematical process – determining a constraint satisfaction problem that corresponds to the quantum program may be performed by mathematical process utilizing an algorithm/equation to determine the constraint satisfaction problem and its corresponding variables, domains, and constraints)
wherein the first set of computations comprises determining a sub-domain for the variable, whereby defining a simplified CSP, the simplified CSP uses the sub- domain instead of the domain with respect to the variable, a solution of the simplified CSP in addition to one or more execution-specific constraints, defines the quantum circuit (mathematical process – determining a sub-domain for the variable whereby defining a simplified CSP using the sub-domain may be performed by mathematical process utilizing an algorithm/equation to determine the sub-domain and corresponding simplified CSP)
wherein the second set of computations comprises: determining the one or more execution-specific constraints (mathematical process – determining one or more execution-specific constraints may be performed by mathematical process to determine such constraints based on the second set of computations)
defining an execution-specific simplified CSP, the execution- specific simplified CSP comprises the simplified CSP and the one or more execution-specific constraints (mathematical process – defining an execution-specific simplified CSP may be performed by mathematical process utilizing an algorithm/equation to determine the simplified CSP)
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B:
utilizing a CSP solver to solve the execution-specific simplified CSP, whereby the CSP solver utilizes a reduced amount of computational resources for solving the execution-specific simplified CSP compared to an amount of computational resources that is required for solving an execution-specific CSP that includes the CSP and the one or more execution-specific constraints (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) – Examiner' s note: high level recitation of applying a CSP solver to solve the simplified CSP without significantly more. This cannot provide an inventive concept)
Accordingly, under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 11:
Step 2A Prong 1:
See the rejection of Claim 10 above, which Claim 11 depends on.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B:
wherein the one or more execution-specific constraints comprise constraints on an availability of resources of the quantum execution platform (Field of Use – limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; in this case specifying that the constraints comprise constraints on resource availability does not integrate the exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more – See MPEP 2106.05(h))
Accordingly, under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 12:
Step 2A Prong 1:
See the rejection of Claim 1 above, which Claim 12 depends on.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B:
obtaining, by the second software compiler, real-time constraints on an availability of resources of the quantum execution platform for the execution (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that merely “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” is a well-understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed limitation is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer)
performing said generating the quantum circuit based on the real-time constraints (Field of Use – limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; in this case specifying that the generating is based on real-time constraints does not integrate the exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more – See MPEP 2106.05(h))
Accordingly, under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 13:
Step 2A Prong 1: See the rejection of Claim 1 above, which Claim 13 depends on.
subsequently to said providing, determining a second distribution of the compilation process of the quantum program, the second distribution of the compilation process is different than the distribution of the compilation process (mathematical/mental process – determining a second distribution of the compilation process of the quantum program may be performed by mathematical process and/or by mental process by a user determining the second distribution based on observing/analyzing the distribution of the compilation process and quantum program and accordingly using judgement/evaluation to determine a second distribution based on said analysis)
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B:
Accordingly, under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 14:
Step 2A Prong 1:
See the rejection of Claim 1 above, which Claim 14 depends on.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B:
wherein the quantum execution platform comprises a quantum computing cloud or a quantum computer (Field of Use – limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; in this case specifying that the quantum execution program comprises a quantum computing cloud or a quantum computer does not integrate the exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more – See MPEP 2106.05(h))
Accordingly, under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 15:
Step 2A Prong 1: See the rejection of Claim 1 above, which Claim 15 depends on.
generating, by the second software compiler, a second quantum circuit implementing the intermediate-level data structure, said generating the second quantum circuit comprising performing the second set of computations (mathematical process – generating a quantum circuit implementing the intermediate-level data structure may be performed by mathematical process in which the second set of computations is performed and accordingly using mathematical processes to generate/define a logical (not necessarily physical) quantum circuit (i.e., defining initial state vectors, representing logic gates/matrices, applying different operations such as matrix multiplication or tensor products, and/or calculating measurement probabilities – as supported by the claim language which states that the quantum circuit is generated by performing the second set of computations of the program without significantly more))
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B:
initiating a second execution of the quantum program at the quantum execution platform, the second execution is performed subsequent to the execution of the quantum circuit, wherein said initiating the second execution comprises […] (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) – Examiner' s note: high level recitation of initiating a second execution of a quantum program without significantly more)
providing the second quantum circuit to the quantum execution platform for execution thereby, wherein the first quantum circuit is different from the second quantum circuit (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that merely “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” is a well-understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed limitation is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer)
Accordingly, under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1.
Independent Claim 16 recites substantially the same limitations as Claim 1, in the form of an apparatus, including generic computer components. The claim is also directed to performing mental processes/mathematical calculations without significantly more, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
For the reasons above, Claim 16 is rejected as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. This rejection applies equally to dependent claims 17-24. The additional limitations of the dependent claims are addressed below.
Claim 17 recites substantially the same limitations as Claim 2, in the form of an apparatus, including generic computer components. The claim is also directed to performing mental processes/mathematical calculations without significantly more, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 18 recites substantially the same limitations as Claim 3, in the form of an apparatus, including generic computer components. The claim is also directed to performing mental processes/mathematical calculations without significantly more, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 19 recites substantially the same limitations as Claim 4, in the form of an apparatus, including generic computer components. The claim is also directed to performing mental processes/mathematical calculations without significantly more, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 20 recites substantially the same limitations as Claim 5, in the form of an apparatus, including generic computer components. The claim is also directed to performing mental processes/mathematical calculations without significantly more, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 21 recites substantially the same limitations as Claim 6, in the form of an apparatus, including generic computer components. The claim is also directed to performing mental processes/mathematical calculations without significantly more, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 22 recites substantially the same limitations as Claim 7, in the form of an apparatus, including generic computer components. The claim is also directed to performing mental processes/mathematical calculations without significantly more, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 23 recites substantially the same limitations as Claim 8, in the form of an apparatus, including generic computer components. The claim is also directed to performing mental processes/mathematical calculations without significantly more, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 24 recites substantially the same limitations as Claim 9, in the form of an apparatus, including generic computer components. The claim is also directed to performing mental processes/mathematical calculations without significantly more, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Independent Claim 25 recites substantially the same limitations as Claim 1, in the form of a computer program product, including generic computer components. The claim is also directed to performing mental processes/mathematical calculations without significantly more, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
For the reasons above, Claim 25 is rejected as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. No prior art rejection is made for Claims 1-25. However, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 – abstract idea.
7. Examiner has disclosed Griffin et al. (US PG-PUB 20230280988), Bello et al. (US PG-PUB 20220188681), and Nguyen et al. (“Enabling Retargetable Optimizing Compilers for Quantum Accelerators via a Multi-Level Intermediate Representation”), which are the closest prior art as compared to the instant application. Griffin discloses selecting a quantum computing system, comprising selecting a compiler from a plurality of compilers, for quantum program compilation based on executable programming instructions. Bello discloses selecting a subgraph that is common among a first directed acyclic graph and a second direct acyclic graph and accordingly compiling a quantum subcircuit corresponding to the subgraph. Nguyen discloses quantum and classical optimizations via the multi-level intermediate representation, which leverages progressive lowering capabilities to map quantum language expressions to low-level virtual machine-level intermediate representations. However, the aforementioned prior art references seemingly do not disclose the specific limitations of Independent Claims 1, 16, and 25 including “generating, at the first software compiler, an intermediate-level data structure based on the quantum program, said generating the intermediate-level data structure comprising performing the first set of computations; providing the intermediate-level data structure from the first software compiler to the second software compiler; generating, by the second software compiler, a quantum circuit implementing the intermediate-level data structure, said generating the quantum circuit comprising performing the second set of computations” in combination with the remaining limitations of the Independent claims.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Devika S Maharaj whose telephone number is (571)272-0829. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30am - 5:30pm.
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, Alexey Shmatov can be reached at (571)270-3428. 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.
/DEVIKA S MAHARAJ/Examiner, Art Unit 2123
Prosecution Insights