DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
This is a final office action in response to the amendment filed 16 January 2026. Claims 1-2 and 19-20 are amended, claims 9, 16, and 24 are canceled, and claims 26-27 are newly added. Claims 1-8, 10-15, 17-23, and 25-27 remain pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to claims 1-2 and 19-20 and addition of new claims 26-27 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendment is sufficient to overcome the pending 35 U.SC. 112(a) rejection. The rejection is respectfully withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment is insufficient to overcome the pending 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. The rejection remains pending and is updated below, as necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because amended claim 1 relates to operations performed by a graphical workflow builder in a manner that does not encompass a mental process or method of organizing human activity, but instead is directed to technical operations that require machine-based analysis of workflow dependencies, variable binding across execution contexts, data synchronization, and automated execution control that are inherently computational. Applicant additionally asserts that the workflow blocks are not merely passive visual elements, but “non-code user interface elements that are specifically configured to access and interact with various data sources and implement actions that are performed by resources provided by a workflow management platform,” and further that the workflow blocks “represent executable tasks that require system-level operations.” Applicant additionally states that the workflow templates are not passive visual elements, but reusable, executable logic constructs that are adapted to each workflow’s context by identifying relevant dependencies, synchronizing variables, and ensuring that the template’s interconnected blocks can access and process workflow-specific data without conflict. “The workflow builder performs technical operations such as automatically creating logical connections, retrieving information, integrating this information into workflows, and prompting the user to set resources for the workflow,” and “the system automatically configures the logical connections between workflow blocks to establish a sequential trigger-action flow and executes such flow to control internal and external resources” as a concrete, technical process. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The recited limitations encompass a mental process of workflow creation and project management that can be performed by a human using pen and paper and, when given their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite a method for constructing a workflow plan using rules to gather, analyze (context mapping), manipulate, and display data as workflow blocks. This concept pertains to rules or instructions (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people), which falls within the certain methods of organizing human activities grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The data is analyzed by visually placing graphical elements that are representative of a selected one of the human steps and automated steps into the canvas to construct/configure a workflow. The data is further analyzed by defining transitions between different ones of the human steps and automated steps. A human could gather data, determine logical connections and context mappings between a template and a workflow, and manually create the “non-code” workflow block diagram to depict logical connections, dependencies, and a sequential trigger action flow. Further a human could use pen and paper to synchronize variables and determine workflow conflicts. Additionally, context mapping of a template to a workflow is a mental process of applying data analysis rules and associations to make a determination that could be made mentally by a human through judgement, observation, and evaluation, and therefore is directed to an abstract idea. Automating this mental process/ organizing human activity related to project management would be insufficient to take the claimed subject matter out of the realm of abstract ideas.
Applicant asserts that under Step 2A Prong Two any alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application because the claimed system operates to dynamically configure and execute workflows in a manner that improves workflow technology. In particular, the system automatically maps the workflow template to the specific execution context of each workflow in a machine-implemented process such that the template is dynamically adapted to operate correctly and efficiently with multiple, distinct workflows, and eliminating error-prone manual parameter mapping, in a manner that is necessarily rooted in computing technology. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims focus on processing information using project workflow templates to turn user input into tailored output. The workflow template merely converts data from one format to another as part of the abstract idea. The claim limitations do not claim or describe any technical details of any specific improvement to the way computers or user interfaces operate beyond collecting, analyzing, manipulating, and displaying data. Examiner notes that an improvement to interface functionality (beyond the receipt, transmission, and output of data; beyond recitation of conventional, generic graphical user interface technology—information displays, pop-up windows, number fields, buttons) may amount to a practical application or significantly more than a recited abstract idea when user interaction with specific interface elements provides a specific technical improvement. See Patent Eligibility Guidance Example 37.
While including additional elements in the form of “non-code user interface elements,” workflow templates, a workflow builder, and processor that “adapts to each workflow’s context by identifying relevant dependencies, synchronizing variables, and ensuring template’s interconnected blocks can access and process workflow-specific data without conflict,” the specification details that user input and discretion is required for activating a workflow. The Specification at [para. 0334] states: “Activating a workflow refers to the process of starting or enabling the workflow to start. Activation may cause the workflow to perform its designated tasks or actions based on trigger conditions and defined processes. Activation of the workflow may be performed by the user at its discretion. For example, a user may active a workflow after finishing the construction/ configuration phase of the workflow.” The claims are directed to the “construction/ configuration phase of the workflow” and do not positively recite limitations for automated execution of the constructed/configured workflows. Further, the Specification states at [para. 0073-0074]: “Examples of workflow triggers may include user input, such as clicking a button or validating a line of command, or an automated event, such as a timer reaching a certain point or receiving a specific notification.” Because a trigger includes receiving user input, the step for executing a sequential trigger action flow amount to insignificant extra solution activity in the form of data gathering – receiving input for the data processing steps, and as a result, cannot integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. See also Spec. at [0061]: “a trigger may include an input of a data item that is recognized by at least one processor that brings about another action.”
Paragraphs [0087-0088] define the implementation of at least one action. Per the Specification at [0088] an action includes “Data Manipulation Actions: … creating, reading, updating, copying or deleting records in a database, transforming data formats, or performing calculations. " Communication Actions: … sending signals such as alerts, messages, or notifications to users or internal or external systems to provide other systems with information, such as updates, request information from external systems, such as feedback for an input, or trigger further actions in remote and internal systems. … User Interaction Actions: … facilitating user input and interactions within the workflow. They may include displaying forms or interfaces for users to enter data, select options, or make decisions within the workflow process.” These defined actions are directed to receiving input, displaying output, or data analysis, manipulation, transmission, each of which is part of the recited abstract idea or amounts to insignificant-extra solution data gathering or transmission activity that cannot transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. See MPEP § 2106.05(g) & (h).
New claim 27 recites “at least one AI block is configured to analyze an input based on the context of the first or second workflow, and automatically modify a set of actions performed by the at least one AI block by adding at least one pre-processing task to generate additional data for processing by the at least one AI block.” AI is broadly and generically claimed as a data processing tool used to implement the abstract idea. The claim language fails to show that the use of AI provides a technical solution or improvement beyond data processing that could be performed by a general purpose computer. A claim limitation that merely recites the idea of using artificial intelligence to achieve a solution or outcome described in the specification without reciting the details of how the solution or outcome is accomplished in a manner that amounts to a technical improvement/solution is insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The focus of Applicant’s invention is not to improve the performance of computers or any underlying technology; instead, the focus is to use generic computer components as a tool to gather and analyze project workflow data to generate a graphical depiction of the same based on a user’s interaction. Therefore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Applicant asserts that under Step 2B, the claimed “automatic mapping of workflow templates constitutes a technical improvement to workflow execution technology, rather than mere automation of conventional project planning practices,” and “improves computational efficiency by reducing redundant processing and configuration steps, enhances workflow scalability by supporting reuse without duplication, and improves system maintainability by centralizing executable logic while still allowing contextual adaptation” in a manner that is not routine or conventional use of a general purpose computer, such that the claim limitations amount to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the workflow modeling is performed with a computer, that does not necessarily mean that the invention improves technology. The claimed invention is not directed to improved workflow “execution” technology, but to a system, process, and product for workflow planning and modeling through data collection, manipulation, analysis, and output. That is, the invention pertains to improvements in the recited abstract ideas—not in the computer that is used to perform the abstract idea. As a result, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is proper, maintained, and updated below, as necessitated by amendment.
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 1-8, 10-15, 17-23, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1 recites a device, independent claim 19 recites a process, and independent claim 20 recites a product for workflow management to enable users to plan, execute, and monitor processes, projects, and daily tasks (Spec. at [0004]). The claim is directed to the abstract idea of building a programmable workflow, without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 19, and 20 recite substantially similar limitations.
Under Step 1, independent claims 1, 19, and 20 recite at least one step or act including accessing at least one workflow template. Thus the claims fall within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Taking independent claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites at least the following limitations:
display a canvas for enabling placement and interconnection of workflow blocks thereon, wherein the workflow blocks represent tasks for execution and are configured to access at least one of a plurality of data sources, receive at least one trigger, and implement at least one action performed by internal or external resources provided by a workflow management platform;
access at least one workflow template, wherein the at least one workflow template includes a series of interconnected blocks predetermined in order and agnostic to information that the series of interconnected blocks is capable of processing;
access a functionality description associated with the at least one workflow template;
include the at least one workflow template at a first workflow location downstream from at least one first workflow block in a first workflow, and automatically map the at least one workflow template to a context of the first workflow, wherein automatically mapping includes identifying dependencies and interactions between the at least one workflow template and the workflow blocks in the first workflow and configuring the series of interconnected blocks within the at least one workflow template by synchronizing variables based on the identified dependencies;
permit the series of interconnected blocks of the at least one workflow template in the first workflow location to access data associated with workflow blocks in the first workflow upstream of the at least one workflow template in the first workflow location;
include the at least one workflow template at a second workflow location downstream from at least one second workflow block in a second workflow, and automatically map the at least one workflow template to a context of the second workflow, wherein automatically mapping includes identifying dependencies and interactions between the at least one workflow template and the workflow blocks in the second workflow and configuring the series of interconnected blocks within the at least one workflow template by synchronizing variables based on the identified dependencies;
permit the series of interconnected blocks of the at least one workflow template in the second workflow location to access data associated with workflow blocks in the second workflow upstream of the at least one workflow template in the second workflow location;
prompt a user to select an action via a graphical user interface (GUI) associated with the canvas, wherein the action is related to at least one of the first workflow or the second workflow;
retrieve at least one specific input required by at least one of the first workflow or the second workflow;
receive a selection of at least one workflow block from a displayed library of workflow blocks on the GUI, wherein the selection of the at least one workflow block includes dragging and dropping the workflow block from the displayed library onto the canvas;
populate at least one of the first workflow or the second workflow in response to the selected action and the at least one selected workflow block,
wherein populating at least one of the first workflow or the second workflow include automatically creating logical connection between the at least one selected workflow block and workflow blocks of at least one of the first workflow or the second workflow and prompt a user via GUI components to set resources for the at least one selected workflow block execution; and
upon completion of a construction phase, automatically configure the logical connections between the at least one selected workflow block and workflow blocks of at least one of the first workflow or the second workflow to establish a sequential trigger-action flow and execute the sequential trigger-action flow to control internal or external resources via the workflow management platform.
Under Step 2A Prong 1, the limitations to display a canvas; access at least one workflow template; access a functionality description; include a workflow template, permit the series of interconnected blocks to access data; include the at least one workflow template at a second workflow and automatically map the workflow template to a context of the first workflow by identifying dependencies and configuring interconnected blocks by synchronizing variables; permit the series of interconnected inter-connected blocks to access data; include the workflow template at a second workflow location downstream and automatically map the template to a context of the second workflow by identifying dependencies and configuring interconnected blocks by synchronizing variables; permit the interconnected blocks in the second workflow to access data; prompt a user to select an action; retrieve at least one specific input; receive a selection of at least one workflow block; populate at least one of the first workflow or the second workflow, and configure the logical connections between workflow blocks, as drafted, illustrates a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind or via pen and paper (mental observation, evaluation, or judgment that can be performed in the human mind). None of the additional elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. The claims are directed to using a computer to create a visual workflow process depicting dependencies and relationship between sequences of tasks and related workflows. A project manager could draft a chart depicting sequences of tasks for various projects, including task and dependency descriptions, parameters, and rules, using a pen and paper and mentally monitor the progress and completion of tasks.
The data is analyzed by visually placing graphical elements that are representative of a selected one of the human steps and automated steps into the canvas to construct/configure a workflow. The data is further analyzed by defining transitions between different ones of the human steps and automated steps. A human could gather data, determine logical connections and context mappings between a template and a workflow, and manually create the “non-code” workflow block diagram to depict logical connections, dependencies, and a sequential trigger action flow. Further a human could use pen and paper to synchronize variables and determine workflow conflicts. Additionally, context mapping of a template to a workflow is a mental process of applying data analysis rules and associations to make a determination that could be made mentally by a human through judgement, observation, and evaluation, and therefore is directed to an abstract idea. Automating this mental process/ organizing human activity related to project management would be insufficient to take the claimed subject matter out of the realm of abstract ideas. Therefore, the limitations fall into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
Because planning, managing, and monitoring projects and related tasks is a form of managing personal behavior and relationships or interactions between people (assigner to assignee) the claims fall within the abstract concept grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity. While the claim limitations are broadly related to automated workflow technology, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, building an executable workflow using a template, without technical details and technical improvements, the recited limitations are directed to an abstract idea. Further, the Specification at paragraph [0090] states that manual triggers (user click of a button) controls workflow actions, and [0102] internal resources are owned, controlled, or managed by the user implementing the workflow. As a result, the claim limitations fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract concepts.
The claims limitation for displaying a canvas, retrieving at least one specific input; receiving a selection; populate at least one of the workflows; prompting a user, and display the at least workflow template (claim 23), as claimed, is construed as insignificant extra solution activity because the claim lacks functional links to the performance of the steps for building the workflow. The limitation for “display a canvas for enabling placement and interconnection of workflow blocks thereon, wherein the workflow blocks represent tasks for execution and are configured to access at least one of a plurality of data sources, receive at least one trigger, and implement at least one action performed by internal or external resources provided by a workflow management platform” is recited broadly and amounts to data gathering which is considered insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g). Transmitting information for display is insignificant extra-solution activity. The data access, receipt, and display functions recited in the independent claims do not add meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the abstract idea to the particular technological environment. Further, an object “configured” to perform an action is not construed as an object performing the recited actions but as an object capable of performing the recited actions when the claim language does not actively claim the recited intended functions of the object.
Under Step 2A Prong 2, the judicial exception of claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite a processor, interface, and storage device for performing the recited steps. These elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, Applicant’s specification at paragraph [0054-0056] states: “The various processes and functions described in this disclosure may be either part of the microinstruction code or part of the application program, or any combination thereof, which may be executed by a CPU, whether or not such a computer or processor is explicitly shown. … the at least one processor may include one or more integrated circuits (IC), including application-specific integrated circuits (ASIC), microchips, microcontrollers, microprocessors, all or part of a central processing unit (CPU), graphics processing unitl3 (GPU), digital signal processor (DSP), field-programmable gate array (FPGA), server, virtual server, or other circuits suitable for executing instructions or performing logic operations. ” The Specification does not provide additional details about the computer system/server that would distinguish it from any generic processing devices that communicate with one another in a network environment. Adding generic computer components to perform generic functions, such as data gathering, performing calculations, and outputting a result would not transform the claim into eligible subject matter. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The claim amendments directed to “prompt a user to select an action via a graphical user interface (GUI) associated with the canvas, wherein the action is related to at least one of the first workflow or the second workflow; retrieve at least one specific input required by at least one of the first workflow or the second workflow; receive a selection of at least one workflow block from a displayed library of workflow blocks on the GUI, wherein the selection of the at least one workflow block includes dragging and dropping the workflow block from the displayed library onto the canvas; and populate at least one of the first workflow or the second workflow in response to the selected action and the at least one selected workflow block,” amounts to receiving input to build a workflow model in a manner that could be performed mentally or using a pen and paper because the claim fails to include technical details regarding how the GUI functionality changes in response to the selection that goes beyond generating an output and using the GUI as a tool to implement the abstract idea of planning and managing project workflows.
In Example 37, the claimed subject matter was determined to be patent eligible because, “the additional elements recite a specific manner of automatically displaying icons to the user based on usage which provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved interface for electronic devices.” While the claims recite user input of data using a GUI the claims are distinguishable from those of Example 37 because the claims fail to recite specific user interface interaction with a GUI element, such as an icon widget or other distinct interface object, that amounts to significantly more than data gathering in the form of receiving data in a data field. The claims herein are more analogous to those of Claim 2 of Example 40 wherein the claims are directed to mere data gathering steps that automate the comparison of data without significantly more than the recited insignificant extra solution activity and mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
While dependent claims 5 and 8 recite limitations for mapping a workflow template using artificial intelligence and at least one workflow template including at least one AI block, the claims fail to include technical details regarding how the claimed artificial intelligence function for mapping is performed, and the claims are void of a functional link to the performance of the claimed invention and the claimed at least one AI block. The claimed “at least one AI block” is merely a label for a type of object that may be manipulated by a user of the claimed graphical workflow builder. New claim 27 similarly recites “at least one AI block is configured to analyze an input based on the context of the first or second workflow, and automatically modify a set of actions performed by the at least one AI block by adding at least one pre-processing task to generate additional data for processing by the at least one AI block.” AI is broadly and generically claimed as a data processing tool used to implement the abstract idea. The claim language fails to show that the use of AI provides a technical solution or improvement beyond data processing that could be performed by a general purpose computer. A claim limitation that merely recites the idea of using artificial intelligence to achieve a solution or outcome described in the specification without reciting the details of how the solution or outcome is accomplished in a manner that amounts to a technical improvement/solution is insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Because artificial intelligence is broadly and generically claimed, lacks technical details, and is drafted to include any form of modeling or computational function performed by a processor to generate an output, the claimed artificial intelligence elements cannot transform the abstract idea into a practical application. The subject matter of claim 1 does not improve the functioning of a device nor is it an improvement to a technology or a technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding the limitation for “automatically configuring logical connection between the at least one selected workflow block and workflow blocks of at least one of the first workflow or the second workflow to establish a sequential trigger-action flow and execute the sequential trigger-action flow to control internal or external resources,” while a logical connection is configured, the claim limitations fail to recite active claim language for the implementation of the logical connection and the underlying technology used to achieve it. As claimed, the execution requires a trigger event or user initiation which is reasonably construed as executing a user defined rule upon the occurrence of an event, and does not confer patent subject matter eligibility. Because a trigger includes receiving user input, the step for executing a sequential trigger action flow amount to insignificant extra solution activity in the form of data gathering – receiving input for the data processing steps, and as a result, cannot integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. See also Spec. at [0061]: “a trigger may include an input of a data item that is recognized by at least one processor that brings about another action.” Therefore, just as a workflow block is defined and tasks are related through visual depiction, a logical connection as claimed is merely a definition of the relationship between the recited workflow blocks, and does not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application.
Similarly, the clause indicating that the workflows are executable is an intended result of the claimed workflow blocks that is not actively claimed or described in technical details regarding implementation of the execution in a meaningful way that goes beyond a general link to data processing technology. Thus, the claim language fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application.
Turning to Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a processor and storage device amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10- 15, 17-18, 21-23, and 25-27 include the abstract ideas of the independent claims. The dependent claims recite additional limitations directed to applying business rules for managing the workflow upon the occurrence of an event to achieve a business function, without significantly more. The limitations of the dependent claims are not integrated into a practical application because none of the additional elements set forth any limitations that meaningfully limit the abstract idea implementation. There are no additional elements that transform the claim into a patent eligible idea by amounting to significantly more. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. Accordingly, independent claims 19 and 20 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis applied to claim 1 above. Therefore, claims 1-8, 10-15, 17-23, and 25-27 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Calhoun et al. (US 2018/0321830) - screen-based workflow platform for enabling an administrator to configure an experience is provided. The experience comprises a plurality of sequential workflows, which each comprise sequential activities specific to a user. Each activity corresponds to a screen for interfacing with a corresponding user on a GUI. The platform is operable to configure screen elements within an activity screen template in response to administrator input representing interaction of the administrator with the template screen elements. The platform includes a data structure for each activity. The data structure specifies configured screen elements and user-related data.
Shukla et al. (US 2006/0074735) - ink-enabled user interface for building a componentized workflow model. A touch screen display device allows each step of the workflow to be modeled as an activity that has metadata to describe design time aspects, compile time aspects, and runtime aspects of the workflow step. A user selects and arranges the activities via the touch screen device to create the workflow via user interfaces or application programming interfaces. The metadata associated with each of the activities in the workflow is collected to create a persistent representation of the workflow. Users extend the workflow model by authoring custom activities.
Gentilhomme et al. (US 2020/0019899) - systems and methods for a synergetic, multi-interface workflow designer: a visual tool that enables the design, building, and use of high-level processes and standard configuration workflows among multiple users with varying technical capabilities on multiple systems. For example, it enables a line of business user to design and create a high-level process on a first designer interface. The process and its data are received by a second designer interface, which translates the process and data into a standard configuration workflow.
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LETORIA G KNIGHT whose telephone number is (571)270-0485. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Rutao WU can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
/L.G.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3623 /RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights