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 .
Status of Claims
This is in reply to communication filed on 10/15/2025.
Claims 1-2, 5 and 7 have been amended.
Claims 1-7 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant Arguments /Remarks made in an amendment filled on 10/15/2025:
Regarding 35 USC § 101 rejection:
Applicant argument submitted under the title “Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter” in page 5, that
“Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration. Claim 1 has been amended to more clearly be directed to statutory subject matter. Support for the amendment to claim 1 can be found at paragraphs [0012] and [0013]. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that this rejection be withdrawn”.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees and emphasizes none of the providing, scanning, assigning and mapping and registering steps, whether taken individually or collectively, have not been shown to affect any form of technical change or improvement whatsoever, and are abstract idea. Applicant's claims have not been shown to modify, reconfigure, manipulate, or transform the computer, computer software, or any technical elements in any discernible manner, much less yield an improvement thereto. There is simply no showing of implementing any of the claim steps, individually or in combination, amounts to a technological improvement. The examiner first notes that tracking and managing history of a product is not reasonably understood as a technology, but instead involves organizing of human activity.
The data collection, recognition, and storage concept described in the claim is similar to the data collection and management concepts that were held to be abstract ideas in Content Extraction, TLI Communications, and Electric Power Group. Although the claim enumerates the type of information (i.e., location data) that is acquired, stored and analyzed, the Federal Circuit has explained in Electric Power Group and Digitech that the mere selection and manipulation of particular information by itself does not make an abstract concept any less abstract. Further, the claim is not made any less abstract by the invocation of a programmed computer. Unlike Enfish, where the claims were focused on a specific improvement in how the computer functioned, the claim here merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract concepts.
Furthermore, the recited “mobile terminal”, “management server” this recitation to the generic computer technology that is being used as a tool to execute the steps that define the abstract idea do not provide for integration at the 2nd prong and do not provide for significantly more at step 2B. Further the recitation of “a step of temporarily activating, by the mobile terminal, a GPS receiving part in response to the scanning the visual code;” is claimed at a high level of generality without any specific algorithmic steps, model architecture, calibration, sensor fusion, tracking pipeline, latency reduction, or accuracy improvements (contrast McRO, Inc. v. Bandai, 837 F.3d 1299, where specific rules improved animation; and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft, 822 F.3d 1327, where a specific data structure improved database operation).
In sum, Applicant’s arguments do not persuasively show that the claims avoid reciting a judicial exception, integrate the exception into a practical application, or add significantly more.
Regarding 35 USC § 103 rejection:
Applicant argument submitted under the title “Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(l) as being anticipated by Walsh et al. (WO 2001027720; hereinafter "Walsh” Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration)” in pages 5-7, that
“Amended claim 1 recites a step of scanning, by the mobile terminal, a visual code provided at the production base, the visual code encoding site-specific location data and a step of temporarily activating, by the mobile terminal, a GPS receiving part in response to the scanning the visual code. These features are not disclosed by Walsh.
Walsh is presented as teaching a site inspection-based product history management method. However, Walsh does not disclose temporarily activating, by the mobile terminal, a GPS receiving part in response to the scanning the visual code, as claimed.
In contrast, in the claimed invention, a GPS receiving part is temporarily activated by the mobile terminal in response to the scanning the visual code. In particular, the site inspection management app 200 may have the authority to switch the GPS receiving part 150 to an active state only when the visual code is scanned (see the subject specification at paragraph [0013]). Walsh does not disclose the claimed features … Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Walsh in view of Kim (U.S. 20210012273; hereinafter "Kim"). Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration.
The deficiencies of Walsh are discussed above with respect to claim 1, from which claim 7 depends. Kim fails to cure the deficiencies. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that this rejection also be withdrawn.
In view of the foregoing remarks and amendments to the claims, Applicant believes that all claims as currently pending are in condition for allowance, and such action is respectfully requested”
In response, the Examiner first emphasizes that the newly amended limitations are narrower in scope than the features previously presented in claim (1). Applicant's arguments with respect to the amended limitations has been considered, however the argument is primarily raised in support of the amendments to independent claim (1), and therefore is believed to be fully addressed via the new ground of rejection under §103 set forth below, which incorporates a new reference, Arnaud Sahuguet (US 20090303036 A1) to teach the new limitations of claim (1). Accordingly, the amendment and supporting arguments are believed to be fully addressed via the new ground of rejection set forth under §103 below.
Applicant’s remaining arguments either logically depend from the above-rejected arguments, in which case they too are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above, or they are directed to features which have been newly added via amendment. Therefore, this is now the Examiner's first opportunity to consider these limitations in view of the prior art and as such any arguments regarding these limitations would be inappropriate since they have not yet been examined. A full rejection of these limitations in view of the prior art will be presented later in this Office Action.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-7 recite a method, which is directed to a process.
Therefore, each claim falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
The independent claim 1 recite the abstract idea of product history management, see specification [0002]. This idea is described by the steps of
These claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity. The claims recite to a certain method of organizing human activity as the above abstract idea limitations are directed to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The examiner finds the claims to simply recites steps of following rules or instructions to manage product information. The Examiner additionally finds the claims to be similar to an example the courts have identified as being a certain method of organizing human activity:
i. filtering content, BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1345-46, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding that filtering content was an abstract idea under step 2A, but reversing an invalidity judgment of ineligibility due to an inadequate step 2B analysis);
ii. considering historical usage information while inputting data, BSG Tech. LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1286, 127 USPQ2d 1688, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Offending clauses include:
“”
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Is the exception integrated into a practical application?):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims satisfy the following criteria, which indicate that the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application:
The claimed additional limitations are:
Claim 1: mobile terminal, management server,
The additional limitations are directed to using a generic computer to process information and perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitations merely amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Further the recitation of “a step of temporarily activating, by the mobile terminal, a GPS receiving part in response to the scanning the visual code;” is claimed at a high level of generality without any specific algorithmic steps, model architecture, calibration, sensor fusion, tracking pipeline, latency reduction, or accuracy improvements (contrast McRO, Inc. v. Bandai, 837 F.3d 1299, where specific rules improved animation; and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft, 822 F.3d 1327, where a specific data structure improved database operation).
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the judicial exception?):
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As for Step 2B analysis, knowing the consideration is overlapping with Step 2A, Prong 2. The Step 2B considerations have already been substantially addressed under Step 2A Prong 2, see Step 2A Prong 2 analysis above. As discussed above, the additional imitations amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
In addition, the dependent claims recite:
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
Dependent claims 2-7 recitations further narrowing the abstract idea recited in the independent claims 1 and therefore directed towards the same abstract idea, as:
Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B:
The dependent claims 2-7 further narrow the abstract idea recited in the independent claims 1 and are therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
The dependent claims recite the following additional limitations:
Claims 2, 4, 5: mobile terminal, management server,
Claim 7: mobile terminal,
However, the examiner finds each of these additional elements to be directed to merely “apply it” or applying a generic technology to perform the recited abstract idea of managing product information, the recitation to the generic computer technology that is being used as a tool to execute the steps that define the abstract idea do not provide for integration at the 2nd prong and do not provide for significantly more at step 2B.
Therefore, the limitations on the invention of claims 1-7, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Joseph Walsh (International Publication Number WO 2001027720 A2, hereinafter “Walsh”) in view of Arnaud Sahuguet (US 20090303036 A1, hereinafter “Sahuguet”)
Regarding claim 1. Walsh discloses a site inspection-based product history management method, the method comprising:
an origin information providing step in which a mobile terminal of a user visiting a production base for an on-site inspection transmits a product information and a production base information (Walsh, page 18-lines 15-18; “Both types of registration forms (electronic or hardcopy) will inquire … a short description of the item and all references to be linked to the item (image, video, audio)”) to a management server (Walsh, page 10-lines 3-4; “The hardware, memory devices, interfaces and operating systems for the client and server systems 10, 14, 16 and 18 are also known in the art”); (Walsh, page 18-lines 6-10; “If the user entered the web site, a new item option is provided. When selected, a registration form or a registration web page as known in the art (step 106) will be provided with blank fields to type in information or toggles for the user to select among certain options, such as whether or not they are a new customer”)
a code assignment step in which the management server assigns a unique product code to a product identified (Walsh, page 18-line 18 to page19-line 3; “Upon receiving the input for the form, or the form itself, the registration section searches the database to match the categories …proceeds to the UTPC native code generation process FIG. 6 (step 124)”) through the received product information; and (Walsh, page 11-lines 10-13; “the alphanumeric code uniquely corresponds to a specific node in a hierarchical category structure. Thus, the code is associated with item classification categories from broad (such as the general industry the item belongs in) to narrow (the style or type of item”, page 19-lines 1-3; “If on the other hand, the categories entered by the user are not already in the database 20, indicating new categories, the process proceeds to the UIPC native code generation process FIG. 6 (step 124))
a history creation step in which the management server maps and registers the product code, the product information, and the production base information. (Walsh, page 10-lines 19-23; “The UIPC server system 10 will preferably maintain a database 20, or have access to database(s), for storing all codes, fields, nested tables, web pages and related data or information using memory and database management known in the art”, page 19-lines; 5-8; “new UIPC items, the description or Look-See links (step 128) are created and stored on the link table 84 so that the correct description will be displayed for searches for that type of item that was just registered”)
Walsh substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, Walsh fails to explicitly disclose the “a step of scanning, by the mobile terminal, a visual code provided at the production base, the visual code encoding site-specific location data; a step of temporarily activating, by the mobile terminal, a GPS receiving part in response to the scanning the visual code”. However, Sahuguet teaches
a step of scanning, by the mobile terminal, a visual code provided at the production base (Sahuguet, [0004]; “information representing a geographic location may be encoded in a machine-readable representation, and that representation may be printed and displayed at the geographic location”), the visual code encoding site-specific location data (Sahuguet, Fig. 7; “obtain Machine -Readable Representation 706” > “Decode Representation 708”, [0099]; “At step 706, a mobile or handheld device can obtain the machine-readable representation … the handheld device 200 can use the digital camera 202 to capture an image of the representation generated in step 702”); a step of temporarily activating, by the mobile terminal, a GPS receiving part in response to the scanning the visual code; (Sahuguet, Fig. 7; “Provide Geographic Location and Transmit Location and Location Identifier 712”, [0099-0100]; “At step 712, the mobile device can provide a geographic location and transmit the location and the location identifier to the server … the user can use the mobile device to send an address, a description of a location, or latitude-longitude coordinates (e.g., GPS coordinates”)
To provide the method of Walsh with ability of obtaining location-based information (throughout a barcode and/or GPS functionality) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, in view of the teachings of Sahuguet, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (barcode scanners and GPS functionality) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, i.e., one skilled in the art would have recognized that barcode scanners and GPS used in Sahuguet would allow permitting precise tracking of Walsh’s universal product classification systems and translators to generate content that corresponds to the received geographic location or geographic location identifier, see Walsh [0101].
Regarding claim 4. The combination of Walsh in view of Sahuguet disclose the site inspection-based product history management method of claim 1, further comprising:
a logistics location information providing step in which the mobile terminal of the user who visits a logistics base for the on-site inspection transmits the product code and a logistics base information to the management server (see claim 1 rejection supra); and a history update step in which the management server maps and additionally registers a logistics location information identified through the received logistics base information to the corresponding product code. (Walsh, page 31-lines 9-18; “UIPC codes together with their item descriptions can be stored locally using the UIPC distributed 'Look-See' plug-in 54 … The 'Look-See' indexing module 158 provides users or customers with the ability to store locally (on single or multiple machines) a separate list of details of frequently visited UIPC locations)”, page 19-lines 12-13; enter the UIPC web site with the specific intention of creating new categories and those who wish to update or edit the data stored for an item”)
Claims 2-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Joseph in view of Sahuguet further in view of Nugent et al. (US 20170019264 A1, hereinafter “Nugent”) furthermore in view of Raghoebardajal (US 20200311403 A1, hereinafter “Raghoebardajal”).
Regarding claim 2. The combination of Walsh in view of Sahuguet disclose the site inspection-based product history management method of claim 1, wherein the origin information providing step comprises:
The combination substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the “a step of obtaining a production location data from a code data gained by scanning [[a]] the visual code provided at the production base; a step of obtaining a location data of the mobile terminal; a step of transmitting the product information and the production base information to the management server when it is authenticated that the user visits the production base for an on-site inspection in order to manage a product history when the production location falls within the error range of the terminal location as a result of the determination”. However, Nugent teaches
a step of obtaining a production location data from a code data gained by scanning [[a]] the visual code (Nugent, [0030]; “the position sensors are deployed in areas of interest within the building or facility … QR code type position sensors”) provided at the production base; (Nugent, [0034]; “In operation 202, the locations module 110 is configured to detect location information of a user in a building using a position sensor)
a step of obtaining a location data of the mobile terminal; (Nugent, [0022]; “Using IPS or GPS, the mobile device is able to know its current location. If an app on the device validates and maintains the user's identity, the device is now able to communicate who the user is and where they are located in real-time”, [0035]; “In operation 204, the locations module 110 is configured to communicate, wirelessly from a mobile device of the user, the position information to a server”)
a step of transmitting the product information and the production base information to the management server when it is authenticated that the user visits the production base for an on-site inspection in order to manage a product history when the production location falls within the error range of the terminal location as a result of the determination. (Nugent, [0025]; “enables the host system to execute predefined actions and provide the mobile application with information and controls in the context of the worker's current location as they move within a facility, campus or industrial complex”, [0032]; “The actions module 120 may be configured to determine one or more actions available to a user based on the user's location”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Walsh to include a step of obtaining a production location data from a code data gained by scanning the visual code provided at the production base; a step of obtaining a location data of the mobile terminal; a step of transmitting the product information and the production base information to the management server when it is authenticated that the user visits the production base for an on-site inspection in order to manage a product history when the production location falls within the error range of the terminal location as a result of the determination, as taught by Nugent, where this would be performed in order to maintain awareness of the mobile worker's real-time location. See Nugent [0027].
The combination of Walsh in view of Sahuguet further in view of Nugent substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the “a step of determining whether a production location falls within an error range of a terminal location by comparing the production location data with the terminal location data”. However, Raghoebardajal teaches
a step of determining whether a production location falls within an error range of a terminal location by comparing the production location data with the terminal location data; and (Raghoebardajal, [0044]; “A step 930 comprises comparing the locations of at least one peripheral as identified from the respective first and second positions”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nugent to include a step of determining whether a production location falls within an error range of a terminal location by comparing the production location data with the terminal location data, as taught by Raghoebardajal, where this would be performed in order to reduce inaccuracies in the tracking of the user. See Raghoebardajal [0007].
Regarding claim 3. The combination of Walsh in view of Sahuguet further in view of Nugent furthermore in view of Raghoebardajal disclose the site inspection-based product history management method of claim 2, wherein
The combination of Walsh in view of Sahuguet substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination of Walsh in view of Sahuguet fails to explicitly disclose the “the step of obtaining the terminal location data is automatically performed when the production location data is obtained”. However, Nugent teaches
the step of obtaining the terminal location data is automatically performed when the production location data is obtained. (Nugent, [0025]; “With continuous evaluation of location sensors, the mobile device automatically maintains information on its current position with the host system”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Walsh to include the step of obtaining the terminal location data is automatically performed when the production location data is obtained, as taught by Nugent, where this would be performed in order to maintain awareness of the mobile worker's real-time location. See Nugent [0027].
Regarding claim 5. claim 5 recites operations that are no more than a predictable variation or duplication of the operations recited in claim 2, albeit with receiving so-called “the logistics base” location data form scanning a code. Such features would have been an obvious product of ordinary skill in art and common sense, not innovation. That is, the claimed subject matter is no more than a predictable combination of known elements according to their established purposes. See KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418421 (2007); see also MPEP § 2144.04 VI, B.
Regarding claim 6. The combination of Walsh in view of Sahuguet further in view of Nugent furthermore in view of Raghoebardajal disclose the site inspection-based product history management method of claim 5, wherein the logistics location information providing step and the history update step are repeatedly performed whenever the user's visit for the on-site inspection is performed for each logistics base. (Walsh, page 31-lines 15-23; “These locations were originally found by the UIPC searches mentioned previously and can be stored locally based on a number of different item parameters. For example, the Look See index can store items by the UIPC itself (158A), the textual description (158B) and/or the unique UIPC tag using the UIPC tag feature (158C)”)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Walsh in view of Sahuguet further in view of Kim et al. (US 20210012273 A1, hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding claim 7. The combination of Walsh in view of Sahuguet disclose the site inspection-based product history management method of claim 4, further comprising:
The combination of Walsh in view of Sahuguet substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination of Walsh in view of Sahuguet fails to explicitly disclose the “a step in which the mobile terminal asks and checks the user whether a visited place for the on-site inspection is a production base or a logistics base, wherein the origin information providing step is performed when the visited place for the on- site inspection is a production base, and the logistics location information providing step is performed when the visited place is a logistics base as a result of the asking and responding”. However, Kim teaches
a step in which the mobile terminal asks and checks the user whether a visited place for the on-site inspection is a production base or a logistics base, wherein the origin information providing step is performed when the visited place for the on- site inspection is a production base, and the logistics location information providing step is performed when the visited place is a logistics base as a result of the asking and responding. (Kim, [0090]; “FIG. 4A depicts an exemplary user interface 400 of a mobile device 1198 for selecting a zone for performing a validation task within a fulfillment center 200. The user interface 400 may include buttons 401 and 402 for selecting a zone for performing a validation task. For example, user interface 400 may receive a press on button 401 to select picking zone 209 for performing a validation in the picking zone. In another example, user interface 400 may receive a press on button 402 to select buffer zone 205 for performing a validation in the buffer zone 205”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Walsh to include a step in which the mobile terminal asks and checks the user whether a visited place for the on-site inspection is a production base or a logistics base, wherein the origin information providing step is performed when the visited place for the on- site inspection is a production base, and the logistics location information providing step is performed when the visited place is a logistics base as a result of the asking and responding, as taught by Kim, where this would be performed in order to provide improved methods and systems for assigning validation locations and validating a quantity of items in a fulfillment center. See Kim [0004].
Conclusion
1. 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.
2. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US20130193200A1 to O'Connor for teaching user scans a Quick Response code (QR code) using a mobile communication device which transmits product identification information from the QR code and user device information to a product server.
US9225519B1 to Fraccaroli for teaching receiving attributes data for a tagged item that are measured or recorded by sensors of a user equipment such as a smart phone.
US10686655B2 to Rjeili et al. for teaching computing devices using mobile workspace contexts based on proximity to locations.
US11048891B1 to Linn et al. for teaching tracking and authenticating interactions.
US20150081475A1 to Davis, JR. for teaching tracking an authenticated item.
US20180047011A1 to Pedersoli for teaching two way authentication method.
US8280817B2 to Dillon for teaching subset of unique codes are generated from a set of codes.
3. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVIA SALMAN whose telephone number is (313)446-4901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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, FAHD OBEID can be reached at (571) 270-3324. 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.
/AVIA SALMAN/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627