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 .
Detail Action
The Application 18/416,744 is filled on 1/18/2024 with claims 1-20.
This is Non-Final Action.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 5, 6, 9, 11-12, 15, 16, and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 3, 4, 8, 11-12, 13, 14, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11/283,897.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each
other because corresponding claims 1-2, 5, 6, 9, 11-12, 15, 16, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11/283,897 contain every element of claims 1-2, 3, 4, 8, 11-12, 13, 14, and 18 of the instant application and thus anticipate the claims of the
instant application. Claims 1-20 of the instant application therefore are not patentably distinct
from the corresponding patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double
patenting. An application claim is not patentably distinct from a patent claim if the application
claim is anticipated by the patent claim.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea/metal process without significantly more.
Claim 1:
(2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 1 recites the step of:
“Using a trained machine learning process, predict speeds of performing the computation on the data set by the system and the personal computer;
based at least in part on the predicted speeds of performing the computation on the data set by the system and the personal computer,” MPEP 2106.04(a);
This step can reasonably be performed in the human mind, through observation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore recite a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites mere instructions to apply an exception (“A system comprising:”), with additional elements comprising only insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 1 recites the additional element of:
“receive, through the network communication interface, a request from a personal computer to perform a computation on a data set;… determine to perform the computation on the data set or transmit the data set to the personal computer; and
In response to the determining, initiate performing the computation on the data set or transmitting the data set to the personal computer.” MPEP 2106.05(d);
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Further, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 2:
(2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 2 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (“The system..”) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 2 recites the additional element of:
“wherein the trained machine learning process is trained using information indicating past speeds of performing the computation on other data sets by the system and the personal computer;” MPEP 2106.5(d);
amount to is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and/or amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 2 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 3:
(2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 3 is dependent on claims 2 and 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 3, 2 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (“The system…”) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 3 recites the additional element of:
“wherein the information indicates whether the system completed the computation on a pervious data set before the personal computer completed the computation on the previous data set;” MPEP 2106.5(d);
amount to is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and/or amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 3 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claims 2 and 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 4:
(2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 4 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (“The system…”) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 4 recites the additional element of:
“wherein the information indicates whether the system completed the computation on a pervious data set before the personal computer completed the computation on the previous data set;” MPEP 2106.5(d);
amount to is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and/or amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 4 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 5:
(2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 5 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (“The system…”) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 5 recites the additional element of:
“said predicting, using the trained machine learning process, is based at least in part on a hardware specification of the personal computer;” MPEP 2106.5(d);
amount to is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and/or amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 5 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 6:
(2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 6 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (“The system…”) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 6 recites the additional element of:
“using the trained machine learning process, is based at least in part on at least one of: a type of the computation being performed, a type of data being operated on in the computation, an identity of a user making the request to perform the computation, or an identity of the personal computer;” MPEP 2106.5(d);
amount to is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and/or amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 6 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 7:
(2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 7 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (“The system…”) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 7 recites the additional element of:
“wherein the system is further configured to: perform the computation on the data set in response to receiving the request to perform the computation on the data set; and transmit a result of the computation to the personal computer;” MPEP 2106.5(d);
amount to is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and/or amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 7 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 8:
(2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 8 is dependent on claims 7 and 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claims 7 and 1. Claim 8 also recites the step of:
determine whether the system performed the computation on the data set before the personal computer locally performed the computation on the transmitted data set; MPEP 2106.04(a)
This step can reasonably be performed in the human mind, through observation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore recites a mental process.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 8, 7 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (“The System”) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 8 recites the additional element of:
“update the trained machine learning process based on feedback including at least information indicating at least one of: an actual speed of performing the computation on the data set by the system, or an actual speed of performing the computation on the data set by the personal computer;” MPEP 2106.5(d);
amount to is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and/or amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 8 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claims 7 and 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 9:
(2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 9 is dependent on claims 7and 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claims 7 and 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 9, 7 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (“The system…”) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 9 recites the additional element of:
“wherein the system is further configured to: perform the computation on the data set in response to receiving the request to perform the computation on the data set; and transmit a result of the computation to the personal computer;” MPEP 2106.5(d);
amount to is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and/or amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 9 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claims 7 and 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 10:
(2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 10 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 10 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (“The system…”) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 10 recites the additional element of:
“wherein the system has at least one of: more raw processing power, more random access memory (RAM), more storage capacity, or better redundancy than the personal computer;” MPEP 2106.5(d);
amount to is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and/or amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 10 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claims 11-20 are directed to method comprise the steps which the at least one process platform of the System of claims 1-10 are configured to perform. Claims 11-20 recite the same limitations as claims 1-10, respectively; therefore, claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a method without significantly more for the same reasons presented with respect to claims 1-10. See above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-14, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lloyd et al. US 7,773,536 in view of Breitbart US Patent 6,963,914.
18/416,744
Lloyd et al. US 7,773,536 in view of Breitbart US Patent 6,963,914
Claim 1
A system comprising:
one or more processors; and a network communication interface;
wherein the system is configured to:
Lloyd teaches using computer and router, which contains process and network interface; c2:15-45; c5:38-60;
receive, through the network communication interface, a request from a personal computer to perform a computation on a data set;
Lloyd c3:20-50;
Lloyd teaches Monitoring exit traffic; Bending a flow which receive collected stats and make decision about diversion; the content provider’s choice of flows; c4:1-c7:20-34;
using a trained machine learning process, predict speeds of performing the computation on the data set by the system and the personal computer;
Breitbart teaches determining performing based on fastest response; c6:45-70;
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Breitbart’s teaching with Lloyd in order allow to optimize the network system to have the fastest transmission speed.
based at least in part on the predicted speeds of performing the computation on the data set by the system and the personal computer, determine to perform the computation on the data set or transmit the data set to the personal computer; and in response to the determining, initiate performing the computation on the data set or transmitting the data set to the personal computer.
Lloyd c3:20-50;
Breitbart c6:45-70;
Lloyd c4:1-c7:20-34;
Claim 2
The system of Claim 1, wherein the trained machine learning process is trained using information indicating past speeds of performing the computation on other data sets by the system and the personal computer.
Lloyd teaches sets of flows; c4:35-c:5:15;
Claim 3
The system of Claim 2, wherein the information indicates whether the system completed the computation on a previous data set before the personal computer completed the computation on the previous data set.
Breitbart, c7:5-15, c8:36-45; selection of the server to provide fastest response time based on response times to past requests for a previous data set of the file N of each server indicates which server completed the processing operation on the previous data set faster;
Claim 4
The system of Claim 1, wherein the system is further configured to: update the trained machine learning process based on feedback including at least information indicating at least one of: an actual speed of performing the computation on the data set by the system, or an actual speed of performing the computation on the data set by the personal computer.
Breitbart, c7:5-15, c8:36-45;
Claim 6
The system of Claim 1, wherein said predicting, using the trained machine learning process, is based at least in part on at least one of: a type of the computation being performed, a type of data being operated on in the computation, an identity of a user making the request to perform the computation, or an identity of the personal computer.
Lloyd teaches collect RMON2 and netflow data set; see Lloyd c4:18-23;
Claim 7
The system of Claim 1, wherein the system is further configured to:
perform the computation on the data set in response to receiving the request to perform the computation on the data set; and transmit a result of the computation to the personal computer.
Lloyd c3:20-50;
Lloyd c4:1-c7:20-34;
Claim 8
The system of Claim 7, wherein the system is further configured to:
transmit the data set to the personal computer;
determine whether the system performed the computation on the data set before the personal computer locally performed the computation on the transmitted data set; and
update the trained machine learning process based on feedback including at least information indicating at least one of: an actual speed of performing the computation on the data set by the system, or an actual speed of performing the computation on the data set by the personal computer.
Breitbart, c7:5-15, c8:36-45;
Claim 10
The system of Claim 1, wherein the system has at least one of: more raw processing power, more random access memory (RAM), more storage capacity, or better redundancy than the personal computer.
Lloyd teaches the system, the Bender, can be multiple devices which is more than a personal computer. (see Lloyd c7:40-55)
As per claims 11-14 and 16-18, they are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1-4 and 6-8. See rejection above.
18/416,744
Lloyd et al. US 7,773,536 in view of Breitbart US Patent 6,963,914
Claim 20
The method of Claim 17, wherein the request from the personal computer includes one or more keys that references values of the data set.
Lloyd teaches key value includes traffic to and/or from an address or address range. (see Lloyd c8:50-c:9:30)
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lloyd et al. US 7,773,536 in view of Breitbart US Patent 6,963,914 and Meijer US Patent 8,364,751.
18/416,744
Lloyd et al. US 7,773,536 in view of Breitbart US Patent 6,963,914 and Meijer US Patent 8,364,751.
Claim 5
The system of Claim 1, wherein said predicting, using the trained machine learning process, is based at least in part on a hardware specification of the personal computer.
Meijer teaches processing capacity and storage capacity as basis for complete operation. (see Meijer c6:60-65)
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Meijer’s teaching with Lloyd in order allow to optimize the network system basis availability of resource.
As per claim 15, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5. See rejection above.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lloyd et al. US 7,773,536 in view of Breitbart US Patent 6,963,914 and Sicola US Patent 9,110,731.
18/416,744
Lloyd et al. US 7,773,536 in view of Breitbart US Patent 6,963,914 and Sicola US Patent 9,110,731
Claim 9
The system of Claim 7, wherein the system is configured to perform the computation on the data set by executing a large scale data processing engine, and wherein the system further comprises: a plurality of storage devices set up with a fault-tolerant configuration; wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform the computation tolerant of a failure by at least one processor of the one or more processors.
Sicola teaches devices set up with fault-tolerant configuration, see Sicola c3:15-25;
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Meijer’s teaching with Lloyd in order provide system with ability to perform parallel processing.
As per claim 19, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 9. See rejection above.
Related Prior Art
Here is a list of related prior arts:
Versteyhe et al: US Publication 2014/0280593 discloses: System and Method for data collection and analysis using a multi-level Network.
Tumuluru et al: US Publication 2018/0069924 discloses: High through put layer 2 extension leveraging CPU flow affinity.
Phillipi et al. US Publication 2004/0044761 discloses: Systems and Method for Broadband Network Optimization
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PENG KE whose telephone number is (571)272-4062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-5:00.
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, Kevin Young can be reached at (571) 270-3180. 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.
PENG KE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2194
/PENG KE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights