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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 16 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 recites ‘nd’ in line 3, please correct the typographical error to read “and”.
Claim 18 recites ‘a methd including’ in line 2, please correct the typographical error to read “a method including”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“at least one computing device configured to execute instructions upon execution of which by the device the method runs” in claim 19.
The generic placeholder for ‘means for’ is ‘device configured to’, the modifiers of ‘computing’ and ‘execute instructions’ lack a specific or inherent structural meaning to properly modify the generic modifier, as such the claim limitation is interpreted as invoking 112(f). Further, the disclosure lacks the sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The limitation is towards a ‘computing device’ to perform ‘the method’, however, there is no clear or sufficient disclosure of the structure or computer plus algorithm to perform the connection handover, the recording is stated as ‘can be’ in an ‘app’, while algorithms are shown for determining the observation of series, however this is no computer tied to the algorithm and nothing specifically shows the integration of the app as a recording means to the observed data to meet the requirements of an invoked 112(f) interpretation; and the model estimation limitation, algorithms are shown for the observations but not for actual model, and this is never tied to a computer or structure or related to the limitation as claimed.
The limitations ‘interface configured to receive signals’ and ‘memory configured to store instructions’ are interpreted as not invoking 112(f) due to failing at least prongs A and C.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites “during a call connection or a data connection without interrupting this connection”. This limitation is indefinite in that it creates antecedent confusion within the claim. The term ‘this connection’ is not previously established, and also fails to clearly tie itself to the ‘call connection’ or ‘data connection’ limitations. As ‘this connection’ fails to establish a clear antecedent path to the previously claimed elements, this scope of the claim is rendered unclear and indefinite.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the series of observations" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation is not clear which of the two prior ‘series’ limitations are being referenced, and there has not been a clear establishing and naming of a limitation comprising both of the two prior ‘series’ limitations.
Claim 18 recites “during a call connection or a data connection without interrupting this connection”. This limitation is indefinite in that it creates antecedent confusion within the claim. The term ‘this connection’ is not previously established, and also fails to clearly tie itself to the ‘call connection’ or ‘data connection’ limitations. As ‘this connection’ fails to establish a clear antecedent path to the previously claimed elements, this scope of the claim is rendered unclear and indefinite.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the series of observations" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation is not clear which of the two prior ‘series’ limitations are being referenced, and there has not been a clear establishing and naming of a limitation comprising both of the two prior ‘series’ limitations.
Claim 18 recites “A device for machine learning in a telecommunications network based on radio cells, wherein the device is configured to perform a method including the following steps:” Claim 18 is stated to be a device but then proceeds to only recite method steps, as such it is indefinite as apparatus with nothing structural claimed to represent the apparatus. Further claim 19 does recite structure to represent the apparatus.
Claim 18 is further rejected under USC 112(b) as it is unclear based on the use of a ‘means plus function’ structure in ‘a device for machine learning in …’ is intended to invoke a 112(f) interpretation. See MPEP 2181 (I)(A).
Claim 20 recites “during a call connection or a data connection without interrupting this connection”. This limitation is indefinite in that it creates antecedent confusion within the claim. The term ‘this connection’ is not previously established, and also fails to clearly tie itself to the ‘call connection’ or ‘data connection’ limitations. As ‘this connection’ fails to establish a clear antecedent path to the previously claimed elements, this scope of the claim is rendered unclear and indefinite.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the series of observations" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation is not clear which of the two prior ‘series’ limitations are being referenced, and there has not been a clear establishing and naming of a limitation comprising both of the two prior ‘series’ limitations.
Re claim 19, claim limitation “at least one computing device configured to execute instructions upon execution of which by the device the method runs” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The generic placeholder for ‘means for’ is ‘device configured to’, the modifiers of ‘computing’ and ‘execute instructions’ lack a specific or inherent structural meaning to properly modify the generic modifier, as such the claim limitation is interpreted as invoking 112(f). Further, the disclosure lacks the sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The limitation is towards a ‘computing device’ to perform ‘the method’, however, there is no clear or sufficient disclosure of the structure or computer plus algorithm to perform the connection handover, the recording is stated as ‘can be’ in an ‘app’, while algorithms are shown for determining the observation of series, however this is no computer tied to the algorithm and nothing specifically shows the integration of the app as a recording means to the observed data to meet the requirements of an invoked 112(f) interpretation; and the model estimation limitation, algorithms are shown for the observations but not for actual model, and this is never tied to a computer or structure or related to the limitation as claimed. As such the disclosure lacks sufficient structural, or the computer plus algorithm, implementation of each limitation invoking 112(f), rendering the limitations indefinite.
After review of the disclosure including related machine elements, the grounds for enablement under 112(a) are interpreted as being met.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As noted above, the claim limitation “at least one computing device configured to execute instructions upon execution of which by the device the method runs” is interpreted as invoking 112(f). The limitation is drawn towards performing the entirety of the method, and in review of the disclosure the Examiner cannot find clear and sufficient recitations of structure or computer with algorithm-based disclosure for each step of the noted method. As such the claim in indefinite under 112(b) for invoking 112(f) and failing to adequately disclose the limitation. As such, the limitation and thereby the claim are also rejected under 112(a) for failing to meet the written description requirement “because an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention”. Please see MPEP 2163.03(IV) and MPEP 2181.
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.
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.
Claims 11, 12, 13, 18, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mwanje (US Pub 20220386194) in view of Pradhan (US Pub 20220286349) and Veggalam (US Pub 20220124574).
Re claims 11, 18 and 20, Mwanje discloses a method for machine learning in a telecommunications network based on radio cells (Par 1-2, 15-20); the associated device for machine learning in a telecommunications network based on radio cells, wherein the device is configured to perform a method including the following steps (Par 48-56, 58-64 – disclosure of apparatus embodiments); and the associated non-transitory machine readable medium (Par 50-53, 75-78) on which is stored a computer program including machine-readable instructions (Par 50-53, 75-78), the instructions (Par 50-53, 75-78), when executed by a computer (Par 50-53, 75-78), cause the computer to perform the following steps (Par 50-53, 75-78); the method comprising:
carrying out (Par 16-20, 22, 28-31 -serving cell to target cell; -handover successes (HOSs) data points), as a function of a parameter (Par 20, 22, 25, 28-31, 35, 44-46), a connection handover in the telecommunications network (Fig 1; Par 1-2, 16-20, 21-23) in which a mobile terminal (Fig 1 el 100; Par 21-23) switches from one radio cell of the telecommunications network (Par 16-20, 22, 28-31 -serving cell; -cell A -handover successes (HOSs) data points) to another radio cell of the telecommunications network (Par 16-20, 22, 28-31 -target cell; -cell B; -different cells; -handover successes (HOSs) data points) during a connection (Par 2, 16-20, 22, 28-31-telecommunicaiton/radio link);
receiving a series of observations of a property of a signal received by the mobile terminal in the telecommunications network (Fig 1 el 112 to 104/108; Par 20-24, Fig 2, el 202 to 104/108; Par 28-31, 43-44 – data associated with UEs, UE element 100); and
receiving a series of observations of a signal, transmitted by a network device in the telecommunications network, for connection handover (Fig 1 el 114 to 104/106, Par 20-25; Fig 2 el 204/210 to 200, 206 to 104/106, Par 28-31, 43-44 – data associated with network node element 102 and additionally considered networks, showing handover related information);
wherein a model for determining an estimated value for the parameter is determined as a function of the series of observations (Fig 1 el 110 receiving 116, outputting 118, Par 20-21, 23-25; Fig 2 el 110 receiving 208 and outputting 212, Par 28, 30-31; Fig 3 Par 33-36; Fig 4 el 402, Par 43-44), and the estimated value is determined using the model (Fig 1 el 110 receiving 116, outputting 118, Par 20-21, 23-25; Fig 2 el 110 receiving 208 and outputting 212, Par 28, 30-31; Fig 3 Par 33-36; Fig 4 el 404, Par 43-44); however Mwanje fails to explicitly disclose (1) wherein the connection comprises during a call connection or a data connection and the handover is performed without interrupting this connection; and (2) wherein the received observations are recorded.
Regarding item (1) above, this design is however disclosed by Pradhan. Pradhan discloses wherein the connection comprises during a call connection (Par 1, 38, 39, 44) or a data connection (Par 1, 38, 39, 44) and the handover is performed without interrupting this connection (Par 39, 44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Mwanje in order to incorporate the interruption considerations of Pradhan based on the rationale of the use of a known technique to improve similar designs in the same way, in this instance by ensuring that for various connection types the handover functionality operates without interruption to service provides a metric to further limit the estimation model and thereby by providing additional constraints to the model allows for estimation and processing results focused on the improvement and overall quality of the user experience in an effort to reduce and eliminate interruptions in service experienced by the user.
Regarding item (2) above, this design is however disclosed b Veggalam. Veggalam discloses wherein the received observations are recorded (Par 20-23, 28, 39).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Mwanje in order to incorporate the observation recording of Veggalam based on the rationale of the use of a known technique to improve similar designs in the same way, in this instance Veggalam provides for the explicit use of a memory to store the observations in, allowing for the known and predictable functionality of storage spaces in the scope of the design to improve the designs ability to create sets of data and parameter points based on previous environmental data points, thereby dynamically adjusting the model design to adapt to the environment while reducing the effect of an error or outlier in the disruption of the models processing.
Re claim 12, the combined disclosure of Mwanje, Pradhan and Veggalam as a whole disclose the method according to claim 11, Veggalam further discloses wherein a further series of observations of a property of a signal received by a further mobile terminal in the telecommunications network is recorded (Fig 1 el 102 to 114/118/110, Par 16-19, 24; Fig 2 el 202 to 208, Par 26-30 – Figures indicate multiple UE elements providing towards the parameters profiles used to estimate parameters), wherein the estimated value for the parameter is determined as a function of the further series of observations (Fig 1 el 102 to 114/118/110, Par 16-19, 24; Fig 2 el 202 to 208, Par 26-30 – Figures indicate multiple UE elements providing towards the parameters profiles used to estimate parameters).
Re claim 13, the combined disclosure of Mwanje, Pradhan and Veggalam as a whole disclose the method according to claim 11, Mwanje further discloses wherein the model includes a set of parameters (Par 25, 35-36, 40 –leaning/weight adjustment of neural network), wherein the set of parameters is learned as a function of the series of observations (Par 25, 35-36, 40 –leaning/weight adjustment of neural network), wherein the estimated value is determined as a function of the set of parameters (Par 25, 35-36, 40 – handover parameter output after leaning/weight adjustment of neural network).
Re claim 19, the combined disclosure of Mwanje, Pradhan and Veggalam as a whole disclose the device according to claim 18, Mwanje further discloses wherein the device comprises:
at least one interface configured to receive signals which are transmitted in the telecommunications network by the mobile terminal or the network device (Fig 5b el 25/28; Par 64, 68-69);
at least one computing device configured to execute instructions upon execution of which by the device the method runs (Fig 5b el 22; Par 64-67, 73); and
at least one memory configured to store the instructions (Fig 5b el 24; Par 66, 70-73).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mwanje, Pradhan and Veggalam as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Kulkarni (US Patent 11109283).
Re claim 16, the combined disclosure of Mwanje, Pradhan and Veggalam as a whole disclose the method according to claim 11, but fail however to explicitly disclose wherein characterized in that the estimated value and the parameter characterize a threshold value for a difference between a quality of the connection from the mobile terminal to one of the radio cells nd a quality of the connection from the mobile terminal to the other of the radio cells, including a hysteresis margin.
This design is however disclosed by Kulkarni. Kulkarni discloses wherein characterized in that the estimated value and the parameter characterize a threshold value (Col 11 line 55-Col. 12 line 27 [C11L55-C12L24]; C18L1-60; C21L30-53) for a difference between a quality of the connection from the mobile terminal to one of the radio cells (C11L55-C12L24; C18L1-60; C21L30-53) nd a quality of the connection from the mobile terminal to the other of the radio cells (C11L55-C12L24; C18L1-60; C21L30-53), including a hysteresis margin (C11L55-C12L24; C18L1-60; C21L30-53).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Mwanje in order to incorporate the threshold property considerations of Kulkarni based on the rationale of the use of a known technique to improve similar designs in the same way, in this instance the use of the threshold allows for the consideration of specific environmental and communication parameters and improve the quality and consistency of the handovers processing in light of the focused parameters and metrics.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mwanje, Pradhan and Veggalam as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Michel (US Pub 20150237516).
Re claim 17, the combined disclosure of Mwanje, Pradhan and Veggalam as a whole disclose the method according to claim 11, but fail however to explicitly disclose wherein the estimated value and the parameter characterize a threshold value for a counter for securing a successful connection handover, including a handover failure timer.
This design is however disclosed by Michel. Michel discloses wherein the estimated value and the parameter characterize a threshold value (Par 80, 84) for a counter for securing a successful connection handover (Par 80, 84), including a handover failure timer (Par 80, 84).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Mwanje in order to incorporate the threshold property considerations of MIchel based on the rationale of the use of a known technique to improve similar designs in the same way, in this instance the use of the threshold allows for the consideration of specific environmental and communication parameters and improve the quality and consistency of the handovers processing in light of the focused parameters and metrics.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the limitations of the above cited claims. Re claim 14 the prior art of record fails to explicitly disclose the prediction of timing related to the handover processing and the associated learning of a parameter set using the predicted timing metrics.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R NEFF whose telephone number is (571)270-1848. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 5:30am-2:00pm.
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, Hannah S. Wang can be reached at (571) 272-9018. 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.
/MICHAEL R NEFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631