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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101
because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly
more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be
determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of
invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1). If the
claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, the second step in the analysis is
to determine whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A). The Step 2A
analysis is broken into two prongs. In the first prong (Step 2A, Prong 1), it is determined
whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts,
mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If it is determined in
Step 2A, Prong 1 that the claims recite a judicial exception, the analysis proceeds to the
second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2), where it is determined whether or not the claims
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If it is determined at step 2A,
Prong 2 that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible
application of the exception (Step 2B). If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any
element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the
claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, or else amounts to
significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Applicant is advised to consult the 2019
PEG for more details of the analysis.
Step 1
According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant case, claims 1-16, 17-20 are directed to a method, system for summarizing issues of an infrastructure. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Step 2A,
Step 2A, Prong 1
Following the determination of whether or not the claims fall within one of the four
categories (Step 1), it must be determined if the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g.
mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human
activity) (Step 2A, Prong 1). In this case, the claims are determined to recite a judicial
exception as explained below.
Regarding Claims 1, 17 these claims recite
representing possible issues for each of the elements using a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) comprising vertices, wherein each of the vertices comprises a rule, an operation and a tuple that comprises an issue and a severity;
receiving data related to performance of elements within the infrastructure; evaluating, at each of the vertices, the data using a respective rule to identify a respective issue at a respective severity; and
summarizing the vertices into core issue vertices for improved human readability and easier diagnosis, wherein the respective rule evaluates to True when the data indicates the respective issue is raisable at the respective severity due to underperformance or False otherwise, wherein the evaluating, for an edge vertex of the vertices, equals an output of the respective rule, and wherein the evaluating, for a non-edge vertex of the vertices, comprises uniting outputs of direct predecessors of the respective vertex with a respective operation, and when the uniting returns True the evaluating outputs a computation of the respective rule associated with the respective vertex otherwise the evaluating outputs False.
The claims recite a mental process. As set forth in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C), “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer”. These are recited at a high level such that they could be performed mentally, and they are also disclosed as a human user performing these functions, simply using a computer as a tool-see spec, [0062]-[0071], Fig. 2. Thus, the claim recites abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Following the determination that the claims recite a judicial exception, it must be
determined if the claims recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a
practical application of the exception (Step 2A, Prong 2). In this case, after considering
all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the
claims do not include additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical
application of the exception as explained below.
In Prong Two, a claim is evaluated as a whole to determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. A claim is not “directed to” a judicial exception, and thus is patent eligible, if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. MPEP 2106.04(d). The claims recite an abstract idea and further the claims as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Regarding Claims 1, 17 these claims
This limitation recites using one or more neural networks as a tool to perform an
abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(f).)
This limitation is understood to be generic computer equipment and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.0S(f))
Step 2B
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are
directed to a judicial exception, it must be determined if the claims contain any element
or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly
more than the judicial exception (Step 2B). In this case, after considering all claim
elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do
not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than
the judicial exception for the same reasons given above in the Step 2A, Prong 2
analysis. Furthermore, each additional element identified above as being insignificant
extra-solution activity is also well-known, routine, conventional as described below.
Claims 1, 17: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, 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 elements amount to no more than generic computing components and field of use/technological environment which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The underlying concept merely receives information, analyzes it, and store the results of the analysis – this concept is not meaningfully different than concepts found by the courts to be abstract (see Electric Power Group, collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis; see Cybersource, obtaining and comparing intangible data; see Digitech, organizing information through mathematical correlations; see Grams, diagnosing an abnormal condition by performing clinical tests and thinking about the results; see Cyberfone, using categories to organize store and transmit information; see Smartgene, comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options). Further the claimed invention appears to be something that can be performed by head and hand (Gottschalk v. Benson). The claimed solution is not necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem (DDR v. Hotels.com). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For example, claim 1 recites the additional elements of “representing…”, “receiving…”, “evaluating…”,”summarizing…”, etc. These elements are recited at a high level of generality and are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the computer art. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, without an inventive concept, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, these claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 2A/2B Prong 2 Dependent Claims
Regarding to claim 2, 18
Claim 2, 18 merely recite other additional elements that adding vertex to a list which performing generic functions that when looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, these claims also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. These claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding to claim 3-4
Claim 3-4 merely recite other additional elements that summarizing reports the core issue vertices which performing generic functions that when looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, these claims also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. These claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding to claim 5, 19
Claim 5, 19 merely recite other additional elements that evaluating with skipping the steps which performing generic functions that when looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, these claims also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. These claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding to claim 6, 20
Claim 6, 20 merely recite other additional elements that sorting the DAG which performing generic functions that when looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, these claims also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. These claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding to claim 7
Claim 7 merely recite other additional elements that evaluating with unites the respective output direct predecessors which performing generic functions that when looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, these claims also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. These claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding to claim 8
Claim 8 merely recite other additional elements that define the rule which performing generic functions that when looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, these claims also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. These claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding to claim 9
Claim 9 merely recite other additional elements that define the elements which performing generic functions that when looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, these claims also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. These claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding to claim 10
Claim 10 merely recite other additional elements that evaluating of the logical group DAG which performing generic functions that when looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, these claims also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. These claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding to claim 11
Claim 11 merely recite other additional elements that define DAG which performing generic functions that when looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, these claims also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. These claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding to claim 12
Claim 12 merely recite other additional elements that define infrastructure which performing generic functions that when looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, these claims also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. These claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding to claim 13
Claim 13 merely recite other additional elements that define triggering the evaluation which performing generic functions that when looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, these claims also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. These claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding to claim 14
Claim 14 merely recite other additional elements that define the evaluating is performed in a centralized computer paradigm which performing generic functions that when looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, these claims also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. These claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding to claim 15
Claim 15 merely recite other additional elements that define the evaluating is performed in an edge computer paradigm which performing generic functions that when looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, these claims also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. These claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding to claim 16
Claim 16 merely recite other additional elements that store the output from DAG which performing generic functions that when looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, these claims also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. These claims are 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.
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 12-15, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ford et al. (Ford) US 2021/0351973
In regard to claim 1, Ford disclose A computer-implemented method for summarizing issues of an infrastructure, the method comprising: ([0005][0006][0045]-[0052] identifying network anomalies)
representing possible issues for each of the elements using a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) comprising vertices, wherein each of the vertices comprises a rule, an operation and a tuple that comprises an issue and a severity; ([0104]-[0119][0121]-[0137] [0213]-[0234] [0286] [0329]-[0348] using DAG to represent anomalies for each node and DAG has vertices, each vertices with a rule and a state/action and with a severity score for the anomalies)
receiving data related to performance of elements within the infrastructure; ([0005][0006] [0096]-[0098] receive PM, KPI, etc. data in the infrastructure)
evaluating, at each of the vertices, the data using a respective rule to identify a respective issue at a respective severity; ([0104]-[0119][0121]-[0137] [0213]-[0234] [0246]-[0263] [0286] [0329]-[0348] evaluate the data using each rule for the vertices to identify the severity score for the detected anomaly or event) and
summarizing the vertices into core issue vertices for improved human readability and easier diagnosis, wherein the respective rule evaluates to True when the data indicates the respective issue is raisable at the respective severity due to underperformance or False otherwise, ([0005][0006][0100]-[0119][0121]-[0137] [0213]-[0234] [0286] [0329]-[0348] generate root cause explanations for the detected anomaly and based on the rule to determine the data is True or False based on the severity level identified based on a specified threshold) wherein the evaluating, for an edge vertex of the vertices, equals an output of the respective rule, ([0104]-[0119][0121]-[0137] [0213]-[0234] [0246]-[0263] [0286] [0316]-[0327] [0329]-[0349] evaluate the data using each rule for an edge vertex of vertices (terminating node) to output the result of the rule)
and wherein the evaluating, for a non-edge vertex of the vertices, comprises uniting outputs of direct predecessors of the respective vertex with a respective operation, ([0096]-[0120][0126]-[0141] [0199]-[0234] [0286] [0329]-[0348]for the intermediate nodes, data are aggregated from data sources to intermediate nodes with corresponding state/action rules) when the uniting returns True the evaluating outputs a computation of the respective rule associated with the respective vertex otherwise the evaluating outputs False. (Fig. 17, [0005][0006][0100]-[0119][0121]-[0137] [0213]-[0234] [0286] [0329]-[0348] based on the rule associated with each vertex to calculate a value from the aggregated data is True or False based on the severity level identified based on a specified threshold. Note: please further define the rule, the operation and vertex and the relationships between them, etc. to help move forward the prosecution)
In regard to claim 2, Ford disclose The method of claim 1,
Ford disclose further comprising adding the direct predecessors of the respective vertex to a suppression list, when the respective rule of the respective vertex evaluates to True. ([0005][0006][0100]-[0119][0121]-[0137] [0213]-[0234] [0286] [0303]-[0309] [0329]-[0359] adding the data sources to a list (DAG) corresponding to the determine the severity level is over the threshold which is Boolean True. Note: please further define the suppression list, please use function description language since non function description language has not much patent weight.)
In regard to claim 3, Ford disclose The method of claim 2,
Ford disclose wherein the summarizing reports the core issue vertices as the vertices whose respective rule computed to True and are not on the suppression list. ([0005][0006][0100]-[0119][0121]-[0137] [0213]-[0234] [0277]-[0286] [0303]-[0309] [0329]-[0359] generate root cause report corresponding to the determine the severity level is over the threshold which is Boolean True for the vertices and the vertices is not in the list yet which is identified as the new anomaly event (and will be added to the DAG)
In regard to claim 4, Ford disclose The method of claim 2,
Ford disclose wherein the summarizing reports the core issue vertices as the vertices that are not on the suppression list. ([0005][0006][0100]-[0119][0121]-[0137] [0213]-[0234] [0277]-[0286] [0303]-[0309] [0329]-[0359] generate root cause report corresponding to the determine the severity level is over the threshold which is Boolean True for the vertices and the vertices is not in the list yet which is identified as the new anomaly event (and will be added to the DAG)
In regard to claim 5, Ford disclose The method of claim 1,
Ford disclose wherein the evaluating comprises skipping the evaluating of the respective rule of the respective vertex when the respective operation of the respective vertex evaluates to False. (Fig. 22B, [0303]-[0309] [0329]-[0359] if the evaluating test for the vertex is not passed, the evaluation stops at the current step and skip the rest and continue to evaluate the next evaluation test rule)
In regard to claim 7, Ford disclose The method of claim 1,
Ford disclose wherein the evaluating unites the respective output of the direct predecessors per the respective operation associated with the respective vertex. ([0096]-[0120][0126]-[0141] [0199]-[0234] [0286] [0329]-[0348]for the intermediate nodes, data are aggregated from data sources to intermediate nodes with corresponding state/action rules)
In regard to claim 8, Ford disclose The method of claim 1,
Ford disclose wherein the rule is based on Boolean operations, relational operations, or a combination thereof. (Fig. 17, [0005][0006][0100]-[0119][0121]-[0137] [0213]-[0234] [0286] [0329]-[0348] based on the rule associated with each vertex to calculate a value from the aggregated data is True or False based on the severity level identified based on a specified threshold)
In regard to claim 9, Ford disclose The method of claim 1,
Ford disclose wherein one of the elements represents a logical grouping of one or more other elements of the infrastructure, and the evaluating evaluates a respective DAG of each of the one or more other elements prior to evaluating a logical grouping DAG. ([0144]-[0158] [0207] [0330]-[0359] data may be grouped per network device ID and the analysis of respective DAG of each of the devices prior to analyzing a DAG belong to the subset)
In regard to claim 10, Ford disclose The method of claim 9,
Ford disclose wherein the evaluating of the logical group DAG is based on a latest result from the DAG for each of the one or more other elements. ([0144]-[0158] [0207] [0330]-[0359] analyzing the DAG belong to the subset based on the negative trends are identified in the subset which indicate an anomaly has occurred and trigger troubleshooting)
In regard to claim 12, Ford disclose The method of claim 1,
Ford disclose wherein the infrastructure comprises an enterprise network and the elements comprise network elements. ([0144]-[0158] [0207][0286] [0330]-[0359] data may be grouped per network device ID and the infrastructure represent a cellular network for service provider)
In regard to claim 13, Ford disclose The method of claim 1,
Ford disclose further comprises triggering the evaluating and the summarizing for a specific element of the elements. ([0132]-[0141][0286] [0303] [0330]-[0359] trigger troubleshooting and root cause analysis and alarms are reported)
In regard to claim 14, Ford disclose The method of claim 1,
Ford disclose wherein the evaluating is performed in a centralized computing paradigm. ([0096]-[00100] Fig. 4. AI engine for evaluating and generate analytics information and results and hosted at a datacenter)
In regard to claim 15, Ford disclose The method of claim 1,
Ford disclose wherein the evaluating is performed in an edge computing paradigm. ([0096]-[00100] Fig. 4. AI engine for evaluating and generate analytics information and results and hosted at local central office)
In regard to claims 17-19, claims 17-19 are system claims corresponding to the method claims 1-2, 5 above and, therefore, are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of claims 1-2, 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 6, 11, 16, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ford et al. (Ford) US 2021/0351973 in view of Lee US 20200396232
In regard to claim 6, Ford disclose The method of claim 1,
But Ford fail to explicitly disclose “further comprising topologically sorting the DAG, in an optimistic or pessimistic mode, to define a traversal for the vertices prior to the evaluating.”
Lee disclose further comprising topologically sorting the DAG, in an optimistic or pessimistic mode, to define a traversal for the vertices prior to the evaluating. ([0012]-[0023][0031]-[0035] [0098]-[0117]traversal the data structure along the vertices and edges starting with the given vertex directed to the edges and by ordering the data and output a list of entities in a ranked order based on the threshold value that assist the user in debugging an anomaly)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made to incorporate Lee’s generating data structures representing relationships among entities in network infrastructure into Ford’s invention as they are related to the same field endeavor of identify anomaly in network infrastructure. The motivation to combine these arts, as proposed above, at least because Lee’s generating data structures representing relationships among entities would help to provide visualization for the relationships between the entities to Ford’s system. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made that providing graph to represent the relationships between the entities would help the user to identify anomalies in the network and therefore improve user experience using the device.
In regard to claim 11, Ford disclose The method of claim 1,
But Ford fail to explicitly disclose “wherein the DAG comprises one or more disjoint DAGs for one of the elements of the infrastructure.”
Lee disclose wherein the DAG comprises one or more disjoint DAGs for one of the elements of the infrastructure. (Fg. 2, 3, [0085]-[0106] 214n, 316 when the entities are not related )
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made to incorporate Lee’s generating data structures representing relationships among entities in network infrastructure into Ford’s invention as they are related to the same field endeavor of identify anomaly in network infrastructure. The motivation to combine these arts, as proposed above, at least because Lee’s generating data structures representing relationships among entities would help to provide visualization for the relationships between the entities to Ford’s system. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made that providing graph to represent the relationships between the entities would help the user to identify anomalies in the network and therefore improve user experience using the device.
In regard to claim 16, Ford disclose The method of claim 1,
But Ford fail to explicitly disclose “further comprising storing the respective output from each DAG in a data storage to identify a list of the core issue vertices for a subset of the infrastructure.”
Lee disclose further comprising storing the respective output from each DAG in a data storage to identify a list of the core issue vertices for a subset of the infrastructure.
(Fg. 4, [0074]-[0085][0085]-[0111] the output data representing data structures from the DAG can be stored and list of root cause vertices for the anomaly is identified for the subset of the infrastructure)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made to incorporate Lee’s generating data structures representing relationships among entities in network infrastructure into Ford’s invention as they are related to the same field endeavor of identify anomaly in network infrastructure. The motivation to combine these arts, as proposed above, at least because Lee’s generating data structures representing relationships among entities would help to provide visualization for the relationships between the entities to Ford’s system. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made that providing graph to represent the relationships between the entities would help the user to identify anomalies in the network and therefore improve user experience using the device.
In regard to claim 20, claim 20 is a system claim corresponding to the method claim 6 above and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Documents PATENT DATE INVENTOR(S) TITLE
US 20160012151 A1 2016-01-14 Muchinsky et al.
USING VERTEX SELF-INFORMATION SCORES FOR VERTICES IN AN ENTITY GRAPH TO DETERMINE WHETHER TO PERFORM ENTITY RESOLUTION ON THE VERTICES IN THE ENTITY GRAPH
Muchinsky et al. disclose a computer program product, system, and method to determine whether to perform entity resolution on vertices in an entity graph. A determination is made of pairs of records in a database having a relationship value satisfying a threshold. An entity relationship graph has a vertex for each of the records of the pairs and an edge between two vertices. Each vertex has a self-information score based on content in the record, an initial unique entity identifier, and an entity information score. For each subject vertex of the vertices, a determination is made of a target vertex directly connected to the subject vertex that has a highest entity information score and whether to set the subject vertex entity identifier and entity information score to the entity identifier and entity information score of the target vertex based on the target vertex self-information score… see abstract.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XUYANG XIA whose telephone number is (571)270-3045. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Jennifer Welch can be reached at 571-272-7212. 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.
XUYANG XIA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2143
/XUYANG XIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2143
Prosecution Insights