DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Applicant Response filed 03 October 2023 for application 18/479,862 filed 03 October 2023.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected.
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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea, and because the claim elements, whether considered individually or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International et al., 573 US 208 (2014).
Regarding claim 1, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method.
The limitation of identifying, at a current time, a current state based on incidents occurring in a lookback window, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of predicting ... whether an incident that meets predefined criteria is likely to occur in a prediction window based on the current state, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of wherein each training lookback window is used to identify incidents occurring in the each training lookback window, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of wherein each training prediction window is used to identify whether at least one incident that meets the predefined criteria occurred in the each training prediction window, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – machine-learning model. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites wherein the machine-learning model is trained based on training data obtained from historical data, wherein each training datum of the training data comprises a training lookback window and a training prediction window which is simply generic training to perform the abstract idea of incident identification and amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites in response to predicting that the incident that meets the predefined criteria is likely to occur, performing steps comprising: transmitting a notification indicating that the incident that meets the predefined criteria is predicted to occur, which is simply transmitting data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 element(s) of:
generic training to perform the abstract idea amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
transmitting data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2016.05(d))
machine-learning model amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 2 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 2 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the machine-learning model is a k-nearest neighbors model.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites wherein the machine-learning model is a k-nearest neighbors model which is simply additional information regarding the model, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – k-nearest neighbors model. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 element(s) of:
k-nearest neighbors model amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
additional information regarding the model do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 3 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 3 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of obtaining from the machine-learning model a probability of whether the incident that meets the predefined criteria is likely to occur.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites obtaining from the machine-learning model a probability of whether the incident that meets the predefined criteria is likely to occur which is simply applying the model recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 element(s) of:
applying the model amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 4 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method.
The limitation of obtaining a binary value indicating whether the incident that meets the predefined criteria is likely to occur in the prediction window, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 5 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 5 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the prediction window corresponds to a future duration of at least forty eight hours from the current time.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the data and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 element(s) of additional information regarding the data do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 6 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 6 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the lookback window corresponds to a duration of six hours prior to the current time.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the data and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 element(s) of additional information regarding the data do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 7 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method.
The limitation of setting a first frequency for generating predictions using the machine-learning model, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of setting a second frequency that is higher than the first frequency for generating the predictions using the machine-learning model, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 8 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 6 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the incidents occurring in the lookback window constitute a subset of all incidents occurring in the lookback window selected based on incident selection criteria.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the data and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 element(s) of additional information regarding the data do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 9 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method.
The limitation of identifying incident templates associated with the incidents occurring in the lookback window, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of determining respective counts of distinct incident templates in the incident templates, wherein the current state comprises the distinct incident templates and the respective counts of the distinct incident templates, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 10 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method.
The limitation of predicting that an incident template associated with the incident that meets the predefined criteria is likely to occur in the prediction window, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 11 is directed to a system with a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) system.
The limitation of identify, at a current time, a current state based on incidents occurring in a lookback window, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of predict ... whether an incident that meets predefined criteria is likely to occur in a prediction window based on the current state, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of wherein each training lookback window is used to identify incidents occurring in the each training lookback window, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of wherein each training prediction window is used to identify whether at least one incident that meets the predefined criteria occurred in the each training prediction window, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – system, one or more memories, one or more processors, instructions. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – machine-learning model. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites wherein the machine-learning model is trained based on training data obtained from historical data, wherein each training datum of the training data comprises a training lookback window and a training prediction window which is simply generic training to perform the abstract idea of incident identification and amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites in response to predicting that the incident that meets the predefined criteria is likely to occur, perform instructions to: transmit a notification indicating that the incident that meets the predefined criteria is predicted to occur, which is simply transmitting data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 element(s) of:
system, one or more memories, one or more processors, instructions amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
generic training to perform the abstract idea amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
transmitting data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2016.05(d))
machine-learning model amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 12 is directed to a system with a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) system. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 11 is applicable here since claim 12 carries out the system of claim 11 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the machine-learning model is a k-nearest neighbors model.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites wherein the machine-learning model is a k-nearest neighbors model which is simply additional information regarding the model, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – k-nearest neighbors model. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 element(s) of:
k-nearest neighbors model amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
additional information regarding the model do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 13 is directed to a system with a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) system. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 11 is applicable here since claim 13 carries out the system of claim 11 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of obtain from the machine-learning model a probability of whether the incident that meets the predefined criteria is likely to occur.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites obtain from the machine-learning model a probability of whether the incident that meets the predefined criteria is likely to occur which is simply applying the model recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 element(s) of:
applying the model amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 14 is directed to a system with a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) system.
The limitation of obtain a binary value indicating whether the incident that meets the predefined criteria is likely to occur in the prediction window, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 15 is directed to a system with a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) system. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 11 is applicable here since claim 15 carries out the system of claim 11 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the prediction window corresponds to a future duration of at least forty eight hours from the current time.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the data and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 element(s) of additional information regarding the data do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 16 is directed to a system with a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) system. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 11 is applicable here since claim 16 carries out the system of claim 11 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the lookback window corresponds to a duration of six hours prior to the current time.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the data and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 element(s) of additional information regarding the data do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 17 is directed to computer readable media, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites computer readable media.
The limitation of identifying, at a current time, a current state based on incidents occurring in a lookback window, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of predicting ... whether an incident that meets predefined criteria is likely to occur in a prediction window based on the current state, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of wherein each training lookback window is used to identify incidents occurring in the each training lookback window, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of wherein each training prediction window is used to identify whether at least one incident that meets the predefined criteria occurred in the each training prediction window, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – one or more ... computer readable media, instructions, one or more processors. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – machine-learning model. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites wherein the machine-learning model is trained based on training data obtained from historical data, wherein each training datum of the training data comprises a training lookback window and a training prediction window which is simply generic training to perform the abstract idea of incident identification and amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites in response to predicting that the incident that meets the predefined criteria is likely to occur, performing steps comprising: transmitting a notification indicating that the incident that meets the predefined criteria is predicted to occur, which is simply transmitting data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 element(s) of:
one or more ... computer readable media, instructions, one or more processors amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
generic training to perform the abstract idea amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
transmitting data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2016.05(d))
machine-learning model amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 18 is directed to computer readable media, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites computer readable media.
The limitation of setting a first frequency for generating predictions using the machine-learning model, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of setting a second frequency that is higher than the first frequency for generating the predictions using the machine-learning model, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 19 is directed to computer readable media, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites computer readable media.
The limitation of identifying incident templates associated with the incidents occurring in the lookback window, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of determining respective counts of distinct incident templates in the incident templates, wherein the current state comprises the distinct incident templates and the respective counts of the distinct incident templates, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 20 is directed to computer readable media, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites computer readable media.
The limitation of predicting that an incident template associated with the incident that meets the predefined criteria is likely to occur in the prediction window, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 7-11, 13-14, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao et al. (Real-Time Incident Prediction for Online Service Systems, hereinafter referred to as “Zhao”).
Regarding claim 1, Zhao teaches a method, comprising:
identifying, at a current time, a current state based on incidents occurring in a lookback window (Zhao, section 2.3 – teaches identifying at current time t the current state [whether or not a future incident will occur] based on an observation window [lookback window]; see also Zhao, Figure 1; Zhao, section 1);
predicting, using a machine-learning model, whether an incident that meets predefined criteria is likely to occur in a prediction window based on the current state (Zhao, section 2.3 – teaches using the observation window to predict incident in prediction window; Zhao, section 3 – teaches using machine learning to predict whether an incident will occur; Zhao, section 3.1 – teaches identifying features [predefine criteria] used by the classifier to predict an incident; see also Zhao, Figure 1; Zhao, section 1),
wherein the machine-learning model is trained based on training data obtained from historical data (Zhao, section 2.3 – teaches using historical data as training data),
wherein each training datum of the training data comprises a training lookback window and a training prediction window (Zhao, section 2.3 - teaches that in the training data if an incident is identified in the prediction window, the observation window [lookback window] is identified as a positive sample and if an incident is not identified in the prediction window, the observation window [lookback window] is identified as a negative sample),
wherein each training lookback window is used to identify incidents occurring in the each training lookback window (Zhao, section 2.3 - teaches that in the training data if an incident is identified in the prediction window, the observation window [lookback window] is identified as a positive sample and if an incident is not identified in the prediction window, the observation window [lookback window] is identified as a negative sample; Zhao, section 3 – teaches using alerts in the observation window [lookback window]), and
wherein each training prediction window is used to identify whether at least one incident that meets the predefined criteria occurred in the each training prediction window (Zhao, section 2.3 - teaches that in the training data if an incident is identified in the prediction window, the observation window [lookback window] is identified as a positive sample and if an incident is not identified in the prediction window, the observation window [lookback window] is identified as a negative sample); and
in response to predicting that the incident that meets the predefined criteria is likely to occur (Zhao, section 3.4 - teaches when an incident is predicted, a notice is sent to engineers to proactively address the incident), performing steps comprising:
transmitting a notification indicating that the incident that meets the predefined criteria is predicted to occur (Zhao, section 3.4 - teaches when an incident is predicted, a notice is sent to engineers to proactively address the incident).
Regarding claim 3, Zhao teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Zhao further teaches wherein predicting, using the machine-learning model, whether the incident that meets the predefined criteria is likely to occur in the prediction window based on the current state comprises:
obtaining from the machine-learning model a probability of whether the incident that meets the predefined criteria is likely to occur (Zhao, section 3.4 – teaches sending a report with the predicted probability that an incident will occur within the window; see also Zhao, figure 3).
Regarding claim 4, Zhao teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Zhao further teaches wherein predicting, using the machine-learning model, whether the incident that meets the predefined criteria is likely to occur in the prediction window based on the current state comprises:
obtaining a binary value indicating whether the incident that meets the predefined criteria is likely to occur in the prediction window (Zhao, section 1 – teaches a binary classification as to whether or not the incident will occur; Zhao, section 2.3 – teaches positive and negative samples [binary]).
Regarding claim 7, Zhao teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above.
Zhao further teaches setting a first frequency for generating predictions using the machine-learning model (Zhao, section 2.3 – teaches setting the frequency of the prediction window),
wherein the steps performed in response to predicting that the incident that meets the predefined criteria is likely to occur further comprise:
setting a second frequency that is higher than the first frequency for generating the predictions using the machine-learning model (Zhao, section 2.3 – teaches that the frequency of the prediction window can be adjusted including making the prediction window larger to create more positive windows).
Regarding claim 8, Zhao teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Zhao further teaches wherein the incidents occurring in the lookback window constitute a subset of all incidents occurring in the lookback window selected based on incident selection criteria (Zhao, section 3 – teaches extracting a portion of alerts as in the observation window as not all alerts help to anticipate incidents in the prediction window).
Regarding claim 9, Zhao teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Zhao further teaches wherein identifying, at the current time, the current state based on the incidents occurring in the lookback window comprises:
identifying incident templates associated with the incidents occurring in the lookback window (Zhao, section 3 – teaches identifying types of alerts in the observation window as some alerts are helpful and other alerts are not helpful in predicting incidents; Zhao, section 3.1.2 – teaches alter counts for alerts with different types; see also Zhao, sections 2.1-2.2); and
determining respective counts of distinct incident templates in the incident templates, wherein the current state comprises the distinct incident templates and the respective counts of the distinct incident templates (Zhao, section 3.1.2 – teaches alter counts for alerts with different types).
Regarding claim 10, Zhao teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Zhao further teaches wherein predicting, using the machine-learning model, whether the incident that meets the predefined criteria is likely to occur in the prediction window based on the current state comprises:
predicting that an incident template associated with the incident that meets the predefined criteria is likely to occur in the prediction window (Zhao, sections 3-3.3 – teaches predicting incidents based on alert types that meet requirements as defined by the classifier).
Regarding claim 11, it is the system embodiment of claim 1 with similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 1. Zhao further teaches a system, comprising:
one or more memories (Zhao, section 4.1 – teaches processor, memory and computer programs); and
one or more processors, the one or more processors configured to execute instructions stored in the one or more memories to (Zhao, section 4.1 – teaches processor, memory and computer programs) …
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Zhao for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Zhao for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 17, it is the computer readable media embodiment of claim 1 with similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 1.
Zhao further teaches one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions operable to cause one or more processors to perform operations comprising (Zhao, section 4.1 – teaches processor, memory and computer programs) …
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 17 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Zhao for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 17 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Zhao for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 9.
Regarding claim 20, the rejection of claim 17 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Zhao for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 10.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Vu et al. (US 2023/0342627 A1 – Automated Lookback Window Searching, hereinafter referred to as “Vu”).
Regarding claim 2, Zhao teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. However, Zhao does not explicitly teach wherein the machine-learning model is a k-nearest neighbors model.
Vu teaches wherein the machine-learning model is a k-nearest neighbors model (Vu, [0026] - teaches forecasting using machine learning; Vu, [0065] - lookback window with prediction horizon; Vu, [0079] - teaches k-nearest neighbor machine learning algorithm; see also Vu, Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhao with the teachings of Vu in order to optimize lookback window parameters in the field of incident occurrence prediction (Vu, [0067] – “Initially, multiple sets of lookback window parameters can be used as follows. First, each set of lookback window parameters may result in one windowed dataset, or one set of metafeatures. Multiple sets of lookback window parameters result in multiple sets of meta-features. The matching of multiple sets of meta-features against all predefined meta-features. A search operation may be executed to improve pipeline performance by finding the optimal lookback window parameters. A performance comparison (e.g., pipeline construction vs. meta-feature matching) may be performed. One or more meta-features can be calculated and matched in order of seconds. Pipeline construction and evaluation may iteratively perform for each set of window parameters, thus the timing for completion may be in the order of hours, depending on the size and complexity of input time series dataset.”).
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Zhao in view of Vu for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
Claim(s) 5-6, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Leite Pinheiro de Paiva et al. (US 2021/0319306 A1 - Prefetching and/or Computing Resource Allocation Based on Predicting Classification Labels with Temporal Data, hereinafter referred to as "Paiva").
Regarding claim 5, Zhao teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. However, Zhao does not explicitly teach wherein the prediction window corresponds to a future duration of at least forty eight hours from the current time.
Paiva teaches wherein the prediction window corresponds to a future duration of at least forty eight hours from the current time (Paiva, [0081] – teaches a forecast interval of a number of days [including at least 2 days]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhao with the teachings of Paiva in order to improve resource costs for event prediction in the field of incident occurrence prediction (Pavia, [0001] – “Time series models may be used predict future events based on historical temporal data. Forecasting many (e.g., hundreds of thousands or millions of) different events, with a separate time series model for each type of event, may be cost prohibitive, e.g., in terms of resource consumption.”).
Regarding claim 6, Zhao teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. However, Zhao does not explicitly teach wherein the lookback window corresponds to a duration of six hours prior to the current time.
Paiva teaches wherein the lookback window corresponds to a duration of six hours prior to the current time (Paiva, [0046] - teaches lookback intervals comprising hours or day [including 6 hour windows]; see also Paiva, [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhao with the teachings of Paiva in order to improve resource costs for event prediction in the field of incident occurrence prediction (Pavia, [0001] – “Time series models may be used predict future events based on historical temporal data. Forecasting many (e.g., hundreds of thousands or millions of) different events, with a separate time series model for each type of event, may be cost prohibitive, e.g., in terms of resource consumption.”).
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Zhao in view of Paiva for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Zhao in view of Paiva for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to MARSHALL WERNER whose telephone number is (469) 295-9143. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Thursday 7:30 AM – 4:30 PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamran Afshar, can be reached at (571) 272-7796. The fax 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.
/MARSHALL L WERNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2125
Prosecution Insights