DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 03/18/2026. The arguments set forth are addressed herein below.
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new ground of rejection set forth herein; therefore, this action is made Final.
Claims 1-20 are now pending.
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 to 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Each of Claims 1 to 20 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
The examiner follows the two step-analysis, as described in MPEP 2106 (available at https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html). The following diagram is an overview of the steps involved.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1
Step 1 of the two step-analysis considers whether the claims fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention such as a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The instant invention claims a method, a computer system, and a non-transitory, computer-readable medium in claims 1-20. As such, the claimed invention falls into the broad statutory categories of invention. However, claims that fall within one of the four statutory categories may nevertheless be ineligible if they encompass laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas.
Step 2A
Step 2A has been further divided into two prongs as shown in the following diagram.
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Step 2A, Prong 1
Under prong 1 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon. The term “abstract idea” is not interpreted as a layperson might. Instead, the term “abstract idea” is interpreted as described in legal opinions by courts.
According to MPEP 2106.04(a):
the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Here, each of Claims 1 to 20 recite steps or instructions involving observations, judgements or evaluations, which are mental processes as these can be performed in the human mind. under the 2019 PEG. Specifically, independent Claim 1 (and similarly recited Claims 11 and 20) recites “1. (Currently Amended) A method for assessing the performance of an exercise, the method comprising:
receiving, by a computer system from a user interface, a selection of an exercise;
reading, from a non-transitory memory coupled to the computer system, data associated with the exercise, the data including indications of a plurality of joints to detect and a plurality of expected positions of each of the plurality of joints;
receiving, from a video source, a plurality of frames of a real-time performance of a user performing the exercise;
detecting, by the computer system, each of the plurality of joints within each of the plurality of frames;
determining, by the computer system, a change in positions of each of the plurality of joints over a timeframe corresponding to the plurality of frames;
determining that the performance was a success based on comparing, by the computer system, the changes in positions of each of the plurality of joints to the plurality of expected positions of each of the plurality of joints over the timeframe;
determining, by the computer system, that the performance was a success based on the comparing:
and sending, to the user interface, an indication of success that the exercise was performed correctly for increased adherence to an accessible therapeutic exercise program comprising the exercise.”
As indicated above, the underlined portions of representative Independent Claim 1, and similarly recited Independent Claims 11 and 20, generally encompass “recites "determining a change in positions of each of the plurality of joints over a timeframe," "comparing the changes in positions … to the plurality of expected positions … over the timeframe," and "determining that the performance was a success based on the comparing.” Each of these limitations recites at least one step or instruction or rule for: (i) an observation, judgement or evaluation, which is a mental process under the 2019 PEG. The claims generally encompass the steps of receiving, reading, detecting, determining, and sending, which are steps that can be done in the human mind (i.e. (a person watching a movement and judging whether the joints moved as expected). Additionally, the steps also recite and further recite a mathematical comparison of positions over time. Further, dependent Claims 2 to 10, 12 to 18, and 20 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed. The claims therefore recite a mental process and a mathematical concept. Accordingly, each of Claims 1 to 20 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the additional elements in the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Here, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. According to 2019 PEG, a consideration indicative of integration into a practical application includes improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)) or adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular application (a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components for filtering Internet content, as discussed in BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Conversely, considerations not indicative of integration include adding words “apply it” (or equivalent) with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)); adding insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claims 1, 11, and 20 further recite a computer system, a user interface, a non-transitory memory, and a processor yet these are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than in name only) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
The receiving, reading, detecting, determining, and sending steps are deemed to be data gathering and data presentation for the use of the judicial exception and similarly are recited at a high level of generality. Thus, these limitations are a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g), See also selecting a particular source and type of data to be manipulated where “Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Even when the limitations are viewed in combination, the additional elements in this claim do no more than automate the organizing activities needed to be performed, using the one of more computer components as tools. While this type of automation is an improvement in a general sense as opposed to performance manually, there is no change to the computers and other technology that are recited in the claim as automating the abstract ideas, and thus this claim cannot improve computer functionality or other technology. See, e.g., Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, Inc., 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (using a computer to provide a trader with more information to facilitate market trades improved the business process of market trading, but not the computer) and the cases discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), particularly FairWarning IP, LLC v. Latric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data is not an improvement when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer) and Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (using a generic computer to automate a process of applying to finance a purchase is not an improvement to the computer’s functionality). Furthermore, the additional elements do not serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. None of the recited steps or additional elements reflect an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology (MPEP 2106.05(a)). The clause “for increased adherence to an accessible therapeutic exercise program” recites an intended result/field of use and does not impose a meaningful limit (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, Claims 1, 11, and 20 and their dependents as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and these claims are directed to the judicial exception. Thus, Claims 1, 11, and 20 and their dependents lack the eligibility requirements of Step 2 Prong II.
Step 2B
Finally, under step 2B, the examiner evaluates whether the additional elements:
• add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present (MPEP 2106.05(d)); or
• simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present (MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo, April 20, 2018). Thus, the additional elements evaluated under Step 2A are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 do not recite additional elements, individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to the lack of a practical application, the additional elements in the claim (i.e. a computer system, a user interface, a processor, memory, etc.) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components used as tools. These additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable a game to be conducted by performing the basic functions of: (i) receiving, processing, and storing data, (ii) automating mental tasks and (iii) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Further, under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Here, the receiving, reading, detecting, determining, and sending steps of the claims are deemed to be data gathering and data presentation extra-solution activity. Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that these limitations are well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). See storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) and then to present or display said information is well known as in presenting offers and gathering statistics (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii). Accordingly, a conclusion that the step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Therefore, these limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and do not amount to significantly more. Thus, Claims 1, 11, and 20 remain ineligible.
Dependent Claims are ineligible and lack a practical application.
Claims 2-12 inherit the same abstract idea as Claim 1.
Claims 13-19 inherit the same abstract idea as Claim 11.
The dependent claims recite further extra-solution activities and further define the abstract idea of the independent claims.
AIA Notice
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0221930 A1 to Kim et al. in view of US 2021/0409615 A1 to Rykhliuk et al.
Regarding Claim 1, and similarly recited Claims 11 and 20, (Currently Amended) Kim discloses a method for assessing the performance of an exercise, … a computing system comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory memory for storing instructions … a non-transitory computer readable medium, (¶¶ [0013], [0032], [0034] discloses an electronic device which includes a display, a camera, memory and a processor)… the method comprising:
receiving, by a computer system from a user interface, a selection of an exercise (Figs. 1-3, ¶¶ [0010], [0036], [0059]-[0060] discloses analyzing image in content to generate poster information of the user and the exercise);
reading, from a non-transitory memory coupled to the computer system, data associated with the exercise, the data including indications of a plurality of joints to detect and a plurality of expected positions of each of the plurality of joints (figs. 2-5F depicts the user and the user and makes a comparison of the user and the exercise along with depiction of the user’s joints; ¶¶ [0064]-[0065], [0073]-[0074], [0142]-[0143] discloses analyzing the image to generate motion information of the object in the image … The processor 250 may generate information on a start position, an end position, and a length of each section in the content as section information of each section. According to an embodiment, the processor 250 may determine the action name based on the action information of the object);
receiving, from a video source, a plurality of frames of a real-time performance of a user performing the exercise ( figs. 2-5F depicts the user and the user and makes a comparison of the user and the exercise along with depiction of the user’s joints, ¶¶ [0010], [0036], [0064]-[0065], [0073]-[0074]);
determining that the performance was a success based on comparing, by the computer system, the changes in positions of each of the plurality of joints to the plurality of expected positions of each of the plurality of joints over the timeframe (¶¶ [0010], [0036], [0064]-[0065], [0073]-[0074], [0142]-[0143] discloses the processor 250 may subdivide the user's body into a plurality of regions, and determine whether each region is a matching region (e.g., a region where the similarity is greater than or equal to a first value), a similar region (e.g., a region in which the similarity is less than the first value and greater than or equal to a second value), and/or a dissimilar region (e.g., a region in which the similarity is less than the second value), based on the similarity);
determining, by the computer system, that the performance was a success based on the comparing (¶¶ [0072]-[0073], [0142] discloses comparing posture/motion information of the user and determining similarity);
and sending, to the user interface, an indication of success that the exercise was performed correctly for increased adherence to an accessible therapeutic exercise program comprising the exercise (¶¶ [0059], [0073]-[0074] discloses the processor 250 may output the feedback information in a visualized form. According to an embodiment, the processor 250 may implement the feedback information as guidance visualized in the form of a figure. Further, the colors of lines connecting between nodes may be set differently depending on whether the user's posture within the subregion is classified as “matching,” “similar” or “dissimilar” (e.g., a first color line for the matching region, a second color line for the similar region, and a third color line for the dissimilar region) in response to the information that divides the posture of the user into the matching region, the similar region, and the dissimilar region, based on the similarity).
However, Kim does not explicitly disclose:
detecting, by the computer system, each of the plurality of joints within each of the plurality of frames; and determining, by the computer system, a change in positions of each of the plurality of joints over a timeframe corresponding to the plurality of frames.
In a related invention, Rykhliuk discloses:
detecting, by the computer system, each of the plurality of joints within each of the plurality of frames (fig. 1, ¶¶ [0016], [0027], [0092]-[0096] discloses detecting the user’s pose by determining how the body is positioned and the angle between each joint in a frame); and
determining, by the computer system, a change in positions of each of the plurality of joints over a timeframe corresponding to the plurality of frames (¶¶ 0016], [0027], [0092]-[0096] discloses detecting the user’s pose by determining how the body is positioned and the angle between each joint in a frame).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate real time frame detection and joint tracking features of Rykhliuk with the exercise analysis method of Kim in order to provide accurate, frame-level tracking of the user’s movement. This combination would thus yield the predictable result of motion-tracking exercise feedback.
Regarding Claim 2, and similarly recited Claim 12, (Original) Kim in view of Rykhliuk discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the plurality of expected positions of each of the plurality of joints includes relative positions between the plurality of expected positions of two of the plurality of joints (Kim, ¶¶ [0064]-[0065], [0073]-[0074]).
Regarding Claim 3, and similarly recited Claim 13, (Original) Kim in view of Rykhliuk discloses the method of claim 2 wherein the comparing of the changes in positions of each of the plurality of joints to the plurality of expected positions of each of the plurality of joints over the timeframe includes comparing relative starting positions of each of the plurality of joints to relative ending positions of each of the plurality of joints (Kim, ¶¶ [0072]-[0075] discloses position comparison and similarity).
Regarding Claim 4, and similarly recited Claim 14, (Original) Kim in view of Rykhliuk discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising: displaying, on the user interface, in response to sending the indication of success, a movement of a character of a computer game (Rykhliuk ¶¶ [0099]).
Regarding Claim 5, and similarly recited Claim 15, (Original) Kim in view of Rykhliuk discloses the method of claim 4 wherein the movement of the character comprises moving the character between horizontal lanes displayed in the computer game (Rykhliuk ¶¶ [0099]).
Regarding Claim 6, and similarly recited Claim 16, (Original) Kim in view of Rykhliuk discloses the method of claim 5 further comprising: displaying, on the user interface, objects within the lanes of the computer game that prompt the user to perform the exercise in order to move the character into a lane or out of a lane through a successful performance of the exercise (Rykhliuk ¶¶ [0099]).
Regarding Claim 7, and similarly recited Claim 17, (Original) Kim in view of Rykhliuk discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the plurality of joints to detect are selected from the group including a wrist, an elbow, and a shoulder (Kim, ¶¶ [0074], [0142]-[0143] discloses the processor 250 may generate nodes corresponding to certain parts of the user's body (e.g., joints such as wrists, elbows, head, pelvis, and popliteal muscles), and add lines connecting the nodes to generate the abstract form of the human body, and may output the posture of the user using the abstract humanoid visualization; Rykhliuk ¶¶ [0016] discloses a skeletal pose system that uses a person's movements to drive visual effects, using augmented reality (AR). For example, the skeletal pose system detects a user's pose (e.g., how the user's body is positioned and the angle between each joint) to “trigger” a virtual effect. In another example, the skeletal pose system tracks the user's hand or joint to allow the user to control the level of the virtual effect that they desire).
Regarding Claim 8, and similarly recited Claim 18, (Original) Kim in view of Rykhliuk discloses the method of claim 1 wherein movement of each of the plurality of joints include a flexion movement or a rotational movement (Rykhliuk ¶¶ [0016] discloses a skeletal pose system that uses a person's movements to drive visual effects, using augmented reality (AR). For example, the skeletal pose system detects a user's pose (e.g., how the user's body is positioned and the angle between each joint) to “trigger” a virtual effect. In another example, the skeletal pose system tracks the user's hand or joint to allow the user to control the level of the virtual effect that they desire..
Regarding Claim 9, and similarly recited Claim 19, (Original) Kim in view of Rykhliuk discloses the method of claim 1, wherein movement of each of the plurality of joints include an elbow flexion or a shoulder rotation (Kim, ¶¶ [0074], [0142]-[0143] discloses the processor 250 may generate nodes corresponding to certain parts of the user's body (e.g., joints such as wrists, elbows, head, pelvis, and popliteal muscles), and add lines connecting the nodes to generate the abstract form of the human body, and may output the posture of the user using the abstract humanoid visualization; Rykhliuk ¶¶ [0016] discloses a skeletal pose system that uses a person's movements to drive visual effects, using augmented reality (AR). For example, the skeletal pose system detects a user's pose (e.g., how the user's body is positioned and the angle between each joint) to “trigger” a virtual effect. In another example, the skeletal pose system tracks the user's hand or joint to allow the user to control the level of the virtual effect that they desire).
Regarding Claim 10, (Original) Kim in view of Rykhliuk discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining that the performance was a success is based on information preloaded into the non-transitory memory (Kim, ¶¶ [0060]-[0064] discloses stored reference of posture/motion information).
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 101 rejection, Applicant's argument, on pages 8-9, that the detecting/determining/comparing steps cannot be performed in the human mind because they are performed "by a computer system" "in real-time" and would otherwise require a health-care professional to be present has been considered but is not persuasive. The eligibility inquiry does not turn on whether a particular person is present; a single observer can perform the recited comparison. "By a computer system" and "real-time" recite generic computer implementation used to apply the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)), and the detection is claimed by result without any specific technique or improvements to the computer’s functioning or to any other technology or technical field. (MPEP 2106.05(a)). The 101 rejection is hereby maintained.
Applicant's argument that Kim does not teach "receiving, from a user interface, a selection of an exercise" is not persuasive; Kim's input module 150 receives a command/data (Kim, ¶[0036]), reading on the limitation. Applicant's argument that Kim performs static, region-based posture-similarity matching rather than comparing the change in joint positions over a timeframe is persuasive as to Kim alone; The § 102 rejection is withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAUNA-KAY HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-1419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/S.N.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights