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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 corresponding to claims 1 – 10, 21, and 30 claims in the reply filed on 8/17/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 22 – 29 increase the search burden on the Examiner.
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 – 10, 21, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step One
Claims 1 – 10 are directed to a computer system with structural components
Claim 21 is directed to a computer-implemented method.
Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Claim 30 recites a “computer-readable storage medium” that stores a software program performing a function. The Specification fails to expressly limit the recited “medium” to a statutory embodiment. Thus, the plain and ordinary meaning of the recited "medium" includes signals, carrier waves, etc. Accordingly, the recited “computer-readable storage medium” are not a process, a machine, a manufacture or a composition of matter, and Claims 9-16 fail to recite statutory subject matter as defined in 35 U.S.C. 101.
As to claim 1,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
receiving a first item
outputting a first item
outputting each candidate second item;
receiving user input denoting a second item of the multiple candidate second items;
outputting the third item.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, a person can receive/observe information and communicate or present (output) that information.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
inputting the first item to a generative model
receiving from the generative model, in response to the first item, multiple candidate second items
based on the user input, inputting the second item to the generative model;
receiving from the generative model, in response to the second item, a third item; and
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the generative model process and amounts to no more than 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. 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 (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
The computer system, memory, and processor are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recitation of generative model amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
inputting the first item to a generative model
receiving from the generative model, in response to the first item, multiple candidate second items
based on the user input, inputting the second item to the generative model;
receiving from the generative model, in response to the second item, a third item; and
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than 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. 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 (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
The computer system, memory, and processor are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recitation of generative model amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 2,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein the first item forms part of a first item sequence inputted to the generative model, the first item sequence comprising multiple first items.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claim 3,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites the abstract idea described above in claim 1, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein multiple candidate second item sequences are received from the generative model, each comprising multiple second items, the second item forming part of a second item sequence of the multiple second candidate item sequences.
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the generative model process and amounts to no more than 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. 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 (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
wherein multiple candidate second item sequences are received from the generative model, each comprising multiple second items, the second item forming part of a second item sequence of the multiple second candidate item sequences.
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than 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. 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 (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 4,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein the user input denotes one or some but not all second items of the second item sequence, wherein based on the user input said one or some but not all second items are inputted to the generative model
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claim 5,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein the user input denotes the second item and the first item;
wherein, based on the user input, the second item and the first item are
inputted to the generative model, the third item being received in
response thereto.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claim 6,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein the first item forms part of a first item sequence inputted to the generative model, the first item sequence comprising multiple first items;
wherein the user input denotes the second item of the second item sequence and;
the first item of the first item sequence, or a further first item of the first item sequence;
wherein, based on the user input, the second item and the first item or the further first item are inputted to the generative model, the third item being received in response thereto.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claim 7,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein the user input denotes all candidate second items of the second candidate item sequence.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claim 8,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites the abstract idea described above in claim 1, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein outputting the first item comprises rendering the first item in a graphical user interface (GUI);
wherein outputting each candidate second item comprises rendering each candidate second item in the GUI with a first visual linking element that visually links each candidate second item with the first item.
these elements are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. 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 (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations also amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The graphical user interface (GUI) is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
wherein outputting the first item comprises rendering the first item in a graphical user interface (GUI);
wherein outputting each candidate second item comprises rendering each candidate second item in the GUI with a first visual linking element that visually links each candidate second item with the first item.
are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. These limitations also amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
The graphical user interface (GUI) is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 9,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites the abstract idea described above in claim 8, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein multiple candidate third items are received from the generative model in response to the second item, said operations comprising rendering each candidate third item in the GUI with a second visual linking element that visually links each candidate third item sequence with the second item.
these elements are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. 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 (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations also amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
wherein multiple candidate third items are received from the generative model in response to the second item, said operations comprising rendering each candidate third item in the GUI with a second visual linking element that visually links each candidate third item sequence with the second item.
are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. These limitations also amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 10,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites the abstract idea described above in claim 1, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
third item an industrial machine action, a vehicle manipulation action, a security mitigation action, a machine repair or maintenance operation, or another physical action.
amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
wherein said operations comprise causing to be performed based on the third item an industrial machine action, a vehicle manipulation action, a security mitigation action, a machine repair or maintenance operation, or another physical action.
amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 21 has similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same
Claim 30 has similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-10, 21, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated LEE et al (US 2023/0315856)
As to claim 1, LEE et al teaches a computer system comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing computer-readable instructions configured, when executed by the processor, to implement operations (paragraph [0004]…an apparatus includes a memory and a processor. The processor is operatively coupled to the memory. The processor can include one or more processors), comprising:
receiving a first item (paragraph [0032]…the NL interface 100 is configured to receive a natural language request or phrase from a user with an intent to perform an identified task via the complex management system);
outputting the first item (paragraph [0032]…the NL interface is configured to provide the natural language request or phrase to a computational model);
inputting the first item to a generative model (paragraph [0032]…The NL interface is configured to provide the natural language request or phrase to a computational model, for example, one or more machine learning (ML) models, also referred to herein in general as an ML model, that is trained, via context-based learning, to transform natural language requests or phrases into complex queries or system commands compatible with the complex management system);
receiving from the generative model, in response to the first item, multiple candidate second items (paragraph [0032]…the ML model can transform a natural language request into an intermediate template query, using a rule based or table-based approach);
outputting each candidate second item (paragraph [0033]…the NL interface is configured to display, to the user, the predicted intent and/or the predicted query as a template query);
receiving user input denoting a second item of the multiple candidate second
items (paragraph [0032]…The template query can be finalized with user input, and then translated into a complex SQL query);
based on the user input, inputting the second item to the generative model (paragraph [0032]… the ML model can be trained, using training data, to generate complex queries based on the natural language request or phrase provided by predicting the user's intent to perform the task);
receiving from the generative model, in response to the second item, a third item (paragraph [0032]… the ML model can be trained, using training data, to generate complex queries based on the natural language request or phrase provided by predicting the user's intent to perform the task); and
outputting the third item (paragraph [0033]…the NL interface is configured to display, to the user, the predicted intent and/or the predicted query as a template query, and receive user adjustments or corrections to the predictions).
As to claim 2, LEE et al teaches the computer system, wherein the first item forms part of a first item sequence inputted to the generative model, the first item sequence comprising multiple first items (paragraph [0032]…the NL interface 100 is configured to receive a natural language request or phrase from a user with an intent to perform an identified task via the complex management system).
As to claim 3, LEE et al teaches the computer system, wherein multiple candidate second item sequences are received from the generative model, each comprising multiple second items, the second item forming part of a second item sequence of the multiple second candidate item sequences (paragraph [0033]…Using the augmented training data, including the user provided corrections, the ML model can be retrained to improve its performance in predicting intent of the user, and generating the template query to match or be closer to the user's intent when provided with the natural language request or phrase, or when provided with the other similar and/or related natural language phrases or requests).
As to claim 4, LEE et al teaches the computer system, wherein the user input denotes one or some but not all second items of the second item sequence, wherein based on the user input said one or some but not all second items are inputted to the generative model (paragraph [0032]… the ML model can be trained, using training data, to generate complex queries based on the natural language request or phrase provided by predicting the user's intent to perform the task);
As to claim 5, LEE et al teaches the computer system, wherein the user input denotes the second item and the first item; wherein, based on the user input, the second item and the first item are inputted to the generative model, the third item being received in response thereto (paragraph [0034]…the NL system 100 can be configured to implement the NL interface such that a user can start typing in the natural language request or phrase and the NL system 100 can use an ML model to predict the user's intent mid-typing and offer auto-completion options from which the user can select. In some embodiments, the NL system 100 is configured to receive, via the NL interface, user provided selection of an auto-complete option from a list of potential options, and provide the user selection of the option to augment the training data used to train the ML model used to generate the auto-completion options. In some implementations, the functionality of auto-completion can be selectable by the user via a control tool provided in the NL interface (e.g., a check box or a radio button) that can be selected to indicate that a user would prefer to activate auto-completion and be provided with options from which to choose. In some instances, the selectable variation of auto-completion can change with user preferences and can be saved as user profiles associated with the NL interface (e.g., user profiles linked to specific users having a specific experience or familiarity with the management system and/or specific authentication privileges). In some instances, the NL analysis device can be configured such that the options provided for selection to implement auto-completion can be based on the user profile).
As to claim 6, LEE et al teaches the computer system, wherein the first item forms part of a first item sequence inputted to the generative model, the first item sequence comprising multiple first items; wherein the user input denotes the second item of the second item sequence and: the first item of the first item sequence, or a further first item of the first item sequence; wherein, based on the user input, the second item and the first item or the further first item are inputted to the generative model, the third item being received in response thereto. (paragraph [0034]…the NL system 100 can be configured to implement the NL interface such that a user can start typing in the natural language request or phrase and the NL system 100 can use an ML model to predict the user's intent mid-typing and offer auto-completion options from which the user can select. In some embodiments, the NL system 100 is configured to receive, via the NL interface, user provided selection of an auto-complete option from a list of potential options, and provide the user selection of the option to augment the training data used to train the ML model used to generate the auto-completion options. In some implementations, the functionality of auto-completion can be selectable by the user via a control tool provided in the NL interface (e.g., a check box or a radio button) that can be selected to indicate that a user would prefer to activate auto-completion and be provided with options from which to choose. In some instances, the selectable variation of auto-completion can change with user preferences and can be saved as user profiles associated with the NL interface (e.g., user profiles linked to specific users having a specific experience or familiarity with the management system and/or specific authentication privileges). In some instances, the NL analysis device can be configured such that the options provided for selection to implement auto-completion can be based on the user profile).
As to claim 7, LEE et al teaches the computer system, wherein the user input denotes all candidate second items of the second candidate item sequence. (paragraph [0034]…the NL system 100 can be configured to implement the NL interface such that a user can start typing in the natural language request or phrase and the NL system 100 can use an ML model to predict the user's intent mid-typing and offer auto-completion options from which the user can select. In some embodiments).
As to claim 8, LEE et al teaches the computer system, wherein outputting the first item comprises rendering the first item in a graphical user interface (GUI); wherein outputting each candidate second item comprises rendering each candidate second item in the GUI with a first visual linking element that visually links each candidate second item with the first item (paragraph [0033]…The NL interface is configured to display, to the user, the predicted intent and/or the predicted query as a template query, and receive user adjustments or corrections to the predictions. In some embodiments, the NL system is configured to receive, via the NL interface, user provided corrections and provide the corrections to augment the training data used to train the ML model. Using the augmented training data, including the user provided corrections, the ML model can be retrained to improve its performance in predicting intent of the user, and generating the template query to match or be closer to the user's intent when provided with the natural language request or phrase, or when provided with the other similar and/or related natural language phrases or requests. In some implementations, the NL interface can be implemented as a web form using a suitable application programming interface (API). In some implementations, the NL interface can be implemented using standalone software).
As to claim 9, LEE et al teaches the computer system, wherein multiple candidate third items are received from the generative model in response to the second item, said operations comprising rendering each candidate third item in the GUI with a second visual linking element that visually links each candidate third item sequence with the second item (paragraph [0033]…The NL interface is configured to display, to the user, the predicted intent and/or the predicted query as a template query, and receive user adjustments or corrections to the predictions. In some embodiments, the NL system is configured to receive, via the NL interface, user provided corrections and provide the corrections to augment the training data used to train the ML model. Using the augmented training data, including the user provided corrections, the ML model can be retrained to improve its performance in predicting intent of the user, and generating the template query to match or be closer to the user's intent when provided with the natural language request or phrase, or when provided with the other similar and/or related natural language phrases or requests. In some implementations, the NL interface can be implemented as a web form using a suitable application programming interface (API). In some implementations, the NL interface can be implemented using standalone software).
As to claim 10, LEE et al teaches the computer system, wherein said operations
comprise causing to be performed based on the third item an industrial machine action, a vehicle manipulation action, a security mitigation action, a machine repair or maintenance operation, or another physical action (paragraph [0029]…Communications, artifacts, compute devices, servers, and/or hosts can be considered compromised due to being associated with malware and can be identified as potentially malicious. Management systems, for example, cybersecurity management systems, can often be configured to monitor, evaluate, manage, and/or maintain activity or security associated with communications, artifacts, compute devices, data storage devices, servers, and/or hosts of that are of interest.; paragraph [0037]… The supplemental training data based on a reference natural language query can be generated using human-based approaches, machine -based approaches, and combination or hybrid approaches, as described herein).
Claim 21 has similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reason as above.
Claim 30 has similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reason as above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON S COLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5075. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30pm - 5pm EST (Alternate Friday's Off).
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, Omar Fernandez can be reached at 571-272-2589. 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.
/BRANDON S COLE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights