Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
2. In this Response, Applicant has amended claims 1 and 15 and added claims 26- 28. Applicant has also canceled claims 18 and 25 without prejudice or disclaimer with claims 6-9 and 20 being previously canceled.
3. Claims 1-5, 10-14, 21-24 and 26-30 are pending in the application with claims 1 and 15 being independent.
4. This office action is in response to the RCE filed 11/03/2025.
5. The office action is made non-final.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-5, 10-14, 21-24 and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03.
Claim 1 recites the steps or acts…, and thus is a process (a series of steps or acts). A process is a statutory category of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the step “analyzing one or more elements or one or more relationships of the unstructured existing process to detect the one or more model violations comprising when the one or more elements or the one or more relationships fail at least one model requirement applying a first set of rules to determine whether at least one of the one or more elements are in isolation and applying a second set of rules to determine one or more structural properties of the one or more relationships, wherein the one or more violations include at least one of the one or more structural properties does not have a single entrance or a single exit;” and “generating one or more feedback suggestion types corresponding to the one or more model violations”.
The plain meaning of the “The unstructured process” is “one that is not rigidly defined, predictable, or repeatable. It's often collaborative, dynamic, and relies heavily on human judgment, experience, and collaboration. Unlike structured processes, which follow a set sequence of steps, unstructured processes are more flexible and adapt to the specific situation.” The specification supports that definition ([0142], “The unstructured existing process can be stored as a file or other data. The unstructured existing process can include one or more supported nodes representing one or more steps and/or one or more relationships of the unstructured existing process. Nodes are atomic tasks or steps of a process, multiple tasks make up an activity for process mining, and each task can be equivalent to an activity as well. The one or more supported nodes can include task, start, end, XOR gateway, or AND gateway task nodes (which can represent unstructured process definitions, BPMN elements, and structures). The unstructured existing process can include non-standardized information, along with the unstructured process definitions, the BPMN elements, and the structures.”).
The specification acknowledged that analyzing “one or more elements or one or more relationships of the unstructured existing process” can be done through Conventional models, such as those models are defined using a graphical notation, include errors, violations, and/or broken paths that lead to failure ([0003]).
Analyzing elements or relationships of an existing process is frequently considered an abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101, particularly if it involves mental processes, mathematical algorithms, or methods of organizing human activity (e.g., business practices), that can be performed by a person or a general-purpose computer using routine steps.
Generating one or more feedback suggestions is considered an abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101, particularly if it is framed as a mental process or a method of organizing human activity performed on a generic computer. Under the Alice/Mayo framework, such a concept is considered a "building block" of human ingenuity.
The above steps appear to recite an abstract idea as a form of a mental process. One can mentally analyzing data elements, as a form of an evaluation or judgement and mentally generate correction suggestion, that is a mental conception. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim recites the additional elements of “A hyper-automation method for translating an unstructured existing process into a well-structured process model, the hyper-automation method being executed by a generation engine implemented as a computer program within a computing environment, the generation engine performs the hyper-automation method with one or more robotic process automations to automatically resolve one or more model violations of the unstructured existing process”. is recited at a high level of generality and is used as a tool to perform an abstract idea, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f), and
“Receiving, by the generation engine to initiate the hyper-automation method, the unstructured existing process”, and “providing the one or more feedback suggestion types in a user interface to automatically resolve the one or more model violations”; and “selecting a suggestion of the one or more feedback suggestion types by the one or more robotic process automations”.
are mere data gathering and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution activity of gathering data and post-solution activity of outputting data). See MPEP 2106.05(g).
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 integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements were found to be mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two.
However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The insignificant extra-solution activity found in “Receiving, by the generation engine to initiate the hyper-automation method, the unstructured existing process”, and “providing the one or more feedback suggestion types in a user interface to automatically resolve the one or more model violations”; and “selecting a suggestion of the one or more feedback suggestion types by the one or more robotic process automations” are recited at a high level of generality and well-understood, routine, conventional activity as it has been recognized by the courts as being routine laboratory techniques. See Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (analyzing DNA to provide sequence information or to detect allelic variants is conventional in the art); MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not eligible.
The dependent claims merely incorporate additional elements that narrow the abstract idea without yielding an improvement to any technical field, the computer itself, or limitations beyond merely linking the idea to a particular technological environment.
Claims 2-5, 21-24 and 27-30 (mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer), and
Claims 10-14, 26 (insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering and outputting data).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL. —The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
9. Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 26, recites the limitation “wherein the one or more feedback suggestions comprise one or more corrections using larger language model or other cognitive model”. There is no support for this language in Applicant's specification.
Examiner Note
10. The Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant(s). Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
11. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
12. 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)(1) The claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention;
13. Claims 1-5, 10-14, 21-24 and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Balko et al (US 20130124927 A1) hereinafter as Balko.
14. Regarding claim 1, Balko teaches A hyper-automation method for translating an unstructured existing process into a well-structured process model ([0003], “a computer implemented method/system (hyper-automation method) for providing corrections for semantic errors in a process model.”, [0027], “The likelihood of semantic model errors is amplified by graph-based modeling languages, such as BPMN, which favor free-form modeling over having many constraints (e.g., enforcing block-structuring the model where splits and mergers of process branches need to symmetrically pair up, thus, excluding certain semantic errors in the first place) with respect to how a process model needs to be structured.”, mean the graph-based modeling languages, such as BPMN translate an unstructured existing process into a well-structured process model, [0040], “The derivation helps ensure that the same business-related subject matter or concept can be represented and structured in the same way in various interfaces.”, [0041], “Each business object 105 is thus a capsule with an internal hierarchical structure, behavior offered by its operations, and integrity constraints.”),
the hyper-automation method being executed by a generation engine implemented as a computer program within a computing environment ([0005], “the disclosure includes a computer program product, tangibly embodied in an information carrier, and include instructions that, when executed, cause a processor to perform operations.”),
the generation engine automatically resolves one or more model violations of the unstructured existing process ([0030], “A correction proposal will be established depending on the severity of the underlying constraint violation--that is, for "error" severities, a correction proposal may be established to address the constraint violation. Each constraint violation may result in a number of different correction proposals. The correction proposals may be complementary (thus, addressing different aspects of the underlying constraint violation) or mutually exclusive (by applying incompatible model fixes).”),
the generation engine performs the hyper-automation method with one or more robotic process automations to automatically resolve one or more model violations of the unstructured existing process,
the method comprising: receiving, by the generation engine to initiate the hyper-automation method, the unstructured existing process;
analyzing one or more elements or one or more relationships of the unstructured existing process to detect the one or more model violations comprising when the one or more elements or the one or more relationships fail at least one model requirement ([0030], “The correction framework identifies various constraint violation severities, including the "error" severity level, which is a severity level that indicates that the constraint violation will lead to runtime problems, and the "warning" severity level, which indicates that a particular constraint violation may be a deviation from best practices and may cause runtime problems”, mean, the correction framework identifies various constraint violation severities by analyzing the BPMN graphs until the BPMN graphs are valid and therefore structured),
by applying a first set of rules to determine whether at least one of the one or more elements are in isolation and applying a second set of rules to determine one or more structural properties of the one or more relationships ([0040], “The process model 103 is defined by the business objects 105 and their relationship to each other (the overall net structure).”, [0041], “The business objects 105 are arranged in an ordering framework (a second set of rules) such that they can be arranged according to their existence dependency to each other…the business objects 105 can be arranged in this model from the top to the bottom based on defined order of the business areas, e.g., finance could be arranged at the top of the business object model with customer relationship management (CRM) below finance, and supplier relationship management (SRM) below CRM.”, [0042], “Such logic may include business rules for consistent embedding in the environment 100 and the constraints regarding the values and domains that apply to the business object 105.”, [0045], [0052], “a "Deadlock." Here, the "Deadlock" occurs at AND join gateway 204. The process flow indefinitely blocks at runtime (i.e., the process never terminates or reaches next stage) because the AND join gateway expects both of its incoming branches to be triggered in order to execute the join (a first set of rules).”),
wherein the one or more violations include at least one of the one or more structural properties does not have a single entrance or a single exit ([0052], "the process never terminates or reaches next stage (no single exit), because the AND join gateway expects both of its incoming branches to be triggered in order to execute the join." Fig 2B, [0053], Fig 2C, [0054, Fig 3A, [0055], Fig 3B, [0057]);
generating one or more feedback suggestion types corresponding to the one or more model violations ([0030], “A correction proposal will be established depending on the severity of the underlying constraint violation--that is, for "error" severities, a correction proposal may be established to address the constraint violation. Each constraint violation may result in a number of different correction proposals (one or more feedback suggestion types). The correction proposals may be complementary (thus, addressing different aspects of the underlying constraint violation) or mutually exclusive (by applying incompatible model fixes) (one or more feedback suggestion types).”, Fig 6A, [0075], “The severity of the constraint violations can be identified (614). A determination can be made as to whether the severity is "error" or "warning." If the severity is "error," a determination can be made as to whether there is only one correction proposal (616). If the severity is "error" and there is only one correction proposal, the correction proposal can be applied without further input (i.e., the process model can be altered to rectify the problem) (618). Otherwise, the correction proposals can be stored (620) and sent to the modeler user(s) for selection and confirmation (622).”); and
providing the one or more feedback suggestion types in a user interface to automatically resolve the one or more model violations (Fig 6A, [0075], “The severity of the constraint violations can be identified (614). A determination can be made as to whether the severity is "error" or "warning." (one or more feedback suggestion types) If the severity is "error," a determination can be made as to whether there is only one correction proposal (616). If the severity is "error" and there is only one correction proposal, the correction proposal can be applied without further input (i.e., the process model can be altered to rectify the problem) (618). Otherwise, the correction proposals can be stored (620) and sent to the modeler user(s) for selection and confirmation (622).”, Fig 6B, [0076],” user-selected correction proposals.”); and
selecting a suggestion of the one or more feedback suggestion types by the one or more robotic process automations (Fig 6A, [0075], “The severity of the constraint violations can be identified (614). A determination can be made as to whether the severity is "error" or "warning." If the severity is "error," a determination can be made as to whether there is only one correction proposal (616). If the severity is "error" and there is only one correction proposal, the correction proposal can be applied without further input (i.e., the process model can be altered to rectify the problem) (618). Otherwise, the correction proposals can be stored (620) and sent to the modeler user(s) for selection and confirmation (622).”, Fig 6B, [0076], “A user confirmation for a correction proposal can be received (652).”, other steps of Fig 6B are considered as the one or more robotic process automations, see [0077]).
15. Regarding claim 2, Balko teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and further teaches wherein the at least one model requirement comprises a structural requirement further comprising: requiring a corresponding join gateway of a same type for each split gateway; or requiring a corresponding split gateway of a same type for each join gateway (Fig 2B, 2C, 3A, [0053-0055], XOR split, AND join).
16. Regarding claim 3, Balko teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and further teaches wherein the at least one model requirement comprises a structural requirement further comprising requiring a single entry edge and a single exit edge for each pair of corresponding split and join gateways (Fig 2A, [0050-0051], single entry edge (an Inclusive Gateway 202, which is an XOR split) and single exit edge (a Parallel Gateway 204, which is an AND join.).
17. Regarding claim 4, Balko teaches the invention as claimed in claim 3 above and further teaches wherein each pair of the corresponding split and join gateways share elements between the gateways (Fig 2A, [0050-0051], single entry edge (an Inclusive Gateway 202, which is an XOR split) and single exit edge (a Parallel Gateway 204, which is an AND join.).
18. Regarding claim 5, Balko teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and further teaches wherein the at least one model requirement comprises one or more element requirements (Fig 2A, “activity” nodes).
19. Regarding claim 10, Balko teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and further teaches wherein the detecting of one or more model violations comprises detecting one or more rigid components (Fig 2A, 3A, [0051], [0055], “established the start of a split/parallel branch of the process model (rigid components)”).
20. Regarding claim 11, Balko teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and further teaches wherein the one or more feedback suggestion types comprise a textual feedback type containing textual information (Fig 2B, 5A. 6A, “warning and/or error”).
21. Regarding claim 12, Balko teaches the invention as claimed in claim 11 above and further teaches wherein the textual information is presented with at least one of a plurality of images (Fig 2B, [0029]).
22. Regarding claim 14, Balko teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and further teaches wherein the one or more feedback suggestion types comprise a suggestive feedback type or an alternative feedback type prompting the automatic resolving the one or more model violations (Fig 6A, 6B, [0075-0076], “warning or error”).
23. Regarding claim 21, Balko teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and further teaches wherein the one or more violations are translated within the one or more feedback suggestion types into valid elements ([0030], “A correction proposal will be established depending on the severity of the underlying constraint violation--that is, for "error" severities, a correction proposal may be established to address the constraint violation. Each constraint violation may result in a number of different correction proposals. The correction proposals may be complementary (thus, addressing different aspects of the underlying constraint violation) or mutually exclusive (by applying incompatible model fixes).”).
24. Regarding claim 22, Balko teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and further teaches wherein the one or more violations comprise the unstructured existing process failing to comprise a split gateway ([0055], [0057], [0062-0063], [0066], [0068]).
25. Regarding claim 23, Balko teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and further teaches wherein the one or more violations comprise the unstructured existing process failing to comprise a split-join gateway pair ([0050], [0053-0054], [0057], [0063], [0066], [0068]).
26. Regarding claim 24, Balko teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and further teaches wherein the one or more violations comprise the unstructured existing process failing to comprise a single-entry-single-exit ([0052], “the process never terminates or reaches next stage (no single exit), because the AND join gateway expects both of its incoming branches to be triggered in order to execute the join.” Fig 2B, [0053], Fig 2C, [0054, Fig 3A, [0055], Fig 3B, [0057]).
27. Regarding claim 26, Balko teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and further teaches wherein the one or more feedback suggestions comprise one or more corrections using a large language model or other cognitive model (Fig 1, [0010], process model error correction framework).
28. Regarding claim 27, Balko teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and further teaches wherein the one or more robotic process automations orchestrate human tasks as robot tasks (Figs 6A, 6B).
29. Regarding claim 28, Balko teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and further teaches wherein the unstructured existing process comprises one or more supported nodes representing one or more elements or one or more relationships of the unstructured existing process (Fig 2A, “activity” nodes).
30. Regarding claim 29, Balko teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and further teaches wherein the unstructured existing process comprising non-standardized information with unstructured process definitions ([0009], [0041], [0050]).
31. Regarding claim 30, Balko teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and further teaches wherein the one or more supported nodes comprising task, start, end, XOR gateway, or AND gateway task nodes (Fig 3A, shows task, start, end XOR & AND nodes).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
32. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
33. 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) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
34. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Balko et al (US 20130124927 A1) hereinafter as Balko in view of Tsyganskiyet al (US 8539003 B2) hereinafter as Tsyganskiyet.
35. Regarding claim 13, Balko teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above, and implicitly teaches wherein the one or more feedback suggestion types comprise highlighted feedback type identifying the one or more model violations ([0030], “A correction proposal will be established depending on the severity of the underlying constraint violation”, [0041], “the business object model may be built using standardized data types, as well as packages, to group related elements together, and package templates and entity templates to specify the arrangement of packages and entities within the structure.”).
However, Tsyganskiyet explicitly teaches wherein the one or more feedback suggestion types comprise highlighted feedback type identifying the one or more model violations (Fig 23, col 30, lines 1-6 “the schema where the problem exists is displayed for the user and the portion of the schema with the error is highlighted. When a cursor is placed above the marker, a pop-up box may show the details of the error. For example, the user may be notified that the method P0171 is undefined.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concept of teachings suggested in Tsyganskiyet’s system into Balko’s and by incorporating Tsyganskiyet into Balko because both systems are related to business application software would use of an object-oriented programming (OOP) model to create, improve, and maintain a business application (Tsyganskiyet).
Respond to Amendments and Arguments
36. In this Response, Applicant argued that:
- With respect to part 1, the claims are not an abstract idea and are therefore patentable.
the hyper automation method explicitly includes one or more robotic process automations to resolve model violations. Therefore, because the computer implementation and robotic process automations are essential for the receiving, analyzing, generating feedback, and selecting operations, the hyper automation method requiring computational infrastructure and robotic process automations cannot be performed in a human mind.
- With respect to part 2, in as much as the Office Action alleges that the claims are an abstract idea, the claims meet the significantly more prong of the two- part analysis and are therefore patentable. Each recitation of the claim adds significantly more to the alleged abstract idea such that the claims are not mere instructions implemented on a computer and/or well- understood, routing and conventional computer functions. Therefore, since the recitation of the claims add something "significantly more" under the two-part analysis, the claims are patentable. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Examiner presents the following responses to Applicant’s arguments:
With respect to applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection under 101, Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The above steps of claims appear to recite an abstract idea as a form of a mental process. One can mentally analyzing data elements, as a form of an evaluation or judgement and mentally generate correction suggestion, that is a mental conception.
37. In the remarks received 11/03/2025, applicant argued that Balko fails to disclose, teach, or suggest various features of claim 1, a prima facie anticipation rejection has not been established.
Examiner presents the following responses to Applicant’s arguments:
Applicant's arguments received on 11/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Referring to the previous Office action, Examiner has cited relevant portions of the references as a means to illustrate the systems as taught by the prior art. As a means of providing further clarification as to what is taught by the references used in the first Office action, Examiner has expanded the teachings for comprehensibility while maintaining the same grounds of rejection of the claims, except as noted above in the section labeled “Status of Claims.” This information is intended to assist in illuminating the teachings of the references while providing evidence that establishes further support for the rejections of the claims.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HICHAM SKHOUN whose telephone number is (571)272-9466. The examiner can normally be reached Normal schedule: Mon-Fri 10am-6:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amy Ng can be reached at 5712701698. 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.
/HICHAM SKHOUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164