DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in the current application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 6 and 14 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.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected as they recite at lines 2-3 and 3 respectively “…sustainability scores assigned to each of the using historic playbook prompts” this is unclear as not sure what the sustainability scores are assigned to using historic playbook prompts or if it should be interpreted as the sustainability scores are assigned to each of the historic playbook prompts which is how the claims are being interpreted for analysis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Claims 1-20 are claims that are directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 1, 9 and 17: The limitation of “creating a plurality of playbook prompts based on the one or more commands” and “calculating a sustainability score for each of the plurality of playbook prompts” as drafted, are functions thus under its broadest reasonable interpretation recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompasses a human mind carrying out the function of creating/translating playbook prompts computer code from provided natural language user input commands and mentally calculating a score/value for that code sustainability from mental analysis of the associated code playbook through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
The claims have been identified to recite an abstract idea, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1, 9 and 17: The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claims recite the following additional element “A computing system having a memory having computer readable instructions and one or more processors for executing the computer readable instructions, the computer readable instructions controlling the one or more processors to perform operations comprising,” and “A computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to perform operations comprising” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components.
Additionally, the claims recite the additional element of “receiving one or more commands from a user, wherein the one or more commands are programming code provided in a natural language” and “offering one or more of the plurality of playbook prompts along with the sustainability score for the user to select” which are merely insignificant extra-solution activity information of receiving/transmitting data which does not integrate the judicial exception a practical application. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims, 1, 9 and 17 not only recite an abstract idea but that the claims are directed to the abstract idea as the abstract idea has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 9 and 17: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of ““A computing system having a memory having computer readable instructions and one or more processors for executing the computer readable instructions, the computer readable instructions controlling the one or more processors to perform operations comprising,” and “A computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to perform operations comprising” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception. Additionally, the additional element of “receiving one or more commands from a user, wherein the one or more commands are programming code provided in a natural language” and “offering one or more of the plurality of playbook prompts along with the sustainability score for the user to select” amount to no more that insignificant extra solution activity akin to receiving/transmitting data and presenting offers. Further, the insignificant extra solution data activity is also WURC, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), where “the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity” i. receiving or transmitting data and ii. presenting offers and gathering statistics where the receiving a first code portion limitation is akin to receiving data and the offering one or more of the plurality of playbook prompt limitations is akin to presenting offers. The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception and merely receiving data and presenting offers, do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claims 1, 9 and 17 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
As to claims 2, 10 and 18 the limitation of “wherein each of the plurality of playbook prompts are computer-executable programming code that, when executed, will cause a processing system to perform the one or more commands received from the user” which is merely a field of use/technological environment which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Moreover, claim 2, 10 and 18 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 2, 10 and 18 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 2, 10 and 18 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
As to claims 3, 11 and 19 the limitation of “wherein the plurality of playbook prompts are Ansible playbooks, wherein Ansible is a human-readable programming language” which is merely a field of use/technological environment which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Moreover, claim 3, 11 and 19 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 3, 11 and 19 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 3, 11 and 19 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
As to claims 4, 12 and 20 the limitation of “wherein the sustainability score for each of the plurality of playbook prompts is calculated based on one or more keywords, wherein the one or more keywords is found from searching through different services, states, metadata, applications, and versions of applications utilized by the corresponding playbook prompts” is an additional mental process element under prong 1. Moreover, claims 4, 12 and 20 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 4, 12 and 20 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 4, 12 and 20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claims 5 and 13 they recite additional elements of “wherein the sustainability score for each of the plurality of playbook prompts is calculated by inputting each of the plurality of playbook prompts into a trained prediction model” which merely describe in generic terms the calculating sustainability score by providing input into a trained prediction model because it does not require any particular application of the recited “calculation” using a “trained prediction model” and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Moreover, claims 5 and 13 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 5 and 13 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 5 and 13 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claims 6 and 14 they recite additional elements of “wherein the trained prediction model was trained using historical playbook prompts and sustainability scores assigned to each of the using historical playbook prompts” which merely describe in generic terms that the prediction model is trained using historic data prompts and scores assigned to each prompt and fails to meaningful limit the claim because it does not apply the idea in some other meaningful way and is best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea as it does not require any particular application of the recited “training” and viewed as mere instructions in the form of an algorithm to implement the abstract idea on the computer which is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Moreover, claims 6 and 14 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 6 and 14 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 6 and 14 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
As to claims 7 and 15 the limitation of “assigning a sustainability level to each of the plurality of playbook prompts based on the sustainability score corresponding to each of the plurality of playbook prompts, wherein the sustainability level is selected from one of a high level of sustainability, a medium level of sustainability, and a low level of sustainability” is an additional mental process element under prong 1. Moreover, claims 7 and 15 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 7 and 15 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 7 and 15 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
As to claims 8 and 16 the limitation of “wherein the one or more of the plurality of playbook prompts are offered to the user in a color-coded manner, where a color of the one or more of the plurality of playbook prompts is selected based on the sustainability level” which is merely a field of use/technological environment which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Moreover, claim 8 and 16 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 8 and 16 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 8 and 16 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 5, 9-10, 13 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhargav (Pub. No. US 2024/0054035 A1) and further in view of Vijayaraghavan et al. (Pub. No. US 2025/0094146 A1).
As to claim 1, Bhargav discloses a computer-implemented method for energy consumption aware automated creation of software code, the method comprising: receiving one or more commands from a user, wherein the one or more commands are programming code provided in a natural language (Bhargav [0052] lines 10-22; which shows receiving user natural langue instruction as input, viewed as type of user command);
creating a plurality of playbook prompts based on the one or more commands (Bhargav [0052] lines 4-22; which shows being able to take the user input in natural language and generate a set/plurality of processor executable instructions, viewed as the computer executable code/instructions/playbook prompts).
Bhargav does not specifically disclose calculating a sustainability score for each of the plurality of playbook prompts; offering one or more of the plurality of playbook prompts along with the sustainability score for the user to select.
However Vijayaraghavan discloses calculating a sustainability score for each of the plurality of playbook prompts (Vijayaraghavan [0004] lines 5-21, [0030] lines 1-7, [0032] lines 4-11, [0033] lines 1-6 and [0034] lines 1-13; which shows for a code snippet, viewed as an executable code instruction/playbook prompt being able to calculate energy efficiency of that code element, viewed as efficiency of energy consumption of that code element/snippet, viewed as a type of sustainability score calculation for the code snippet where there are a plurality of code snippets used and thus can be done for each code snippet of the group/plurality of snippets ); and
offering one or more of the plurality of playbook prompts along with the sustainability score for the user to select (Vijayaraghavan [0029] lines 26-30, [0034] lines 1-13, [0035] lines 14-22, [0048] lines 8-16 and [0065] lines 1-11; which shows being able to present/offer to the user the comprehensive energy efficiency metric including the static and dynamic energy score and assessment data, viewed as including the sustainability score for the code snippet that can presented to a user to interact with/select).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Vijayaraghavan showing the specifics of calculating an energy efficiency metric score for a plurality of code snippets, into the generation of a plurality of executable code portions of Bhargav for the improving ability to recommend specific code portions for use based on associated energy efficiency metric of code as taught by Vijayaraghavan [0007] lines 1-5 and [0034] lines 1-13.
As to claim 2, Bhargav discloses wherein each of the plurality of playbook prompts are computer-executable programming code that, when executed, will cause a processing system to perform the one or more commands received from the user (Bhargav [0052] lines 4-22; which shows being able to take the user input in natural language and generate a set/plurality of processor executable instructions, viewed as the computer executable code/instructions/playbook prompts that can be executed based on the received user input natural language command/instructions).
As to claim 5, Bhargav does not specifically disclose, however, Vijayaraghavan discloses wherein the sustainability score for each of the plurality of playbook prompts is calculated by inputting each of the plurality of playbook prompts into a trained prediction model (Vijayaraghavan [0047] lines 1-17 and [0048] lines 1-8; which shows that the code snippets/prompts fed to a trained machine learning/prediction model that the output from which is used to determine/calculate the energy efficiency score/sustainability score for the plurality of code/prompts provided as input).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Vijayaraghavan showing the specifics of calculating an energy efficiency metric score for a plurality of code snippets, into the generation of a plurality of executable code portions of Bhargav for the improving ability to recommend specific code portions for use based on associated energy efficiency metric of code as taught by Vijayaraghavan [0007] lines 1-5 and [0034] lines 1-13.
As to claims 9 and 17 Bhargav discloses a computing system having a memory having computer readable instructions and one or more processors for executing the computer readable instructions, the computer readable instructions controlling the one or more processors to perform operations comprising (Bhargav [0006] lines 1-11)
The remaining limitations of the claims are comparable to claim 1 above and rejected under the same reasoning
As to claims 10 and 18 they are comparable to claim 2 above and rejected under the same reasoning.
As to claim 13 it is comparable to claim 5 above and rejected under the same reasoning.
Claims 3, 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhargav and Vijayaraghavan as applied to claims 2, 10 and 18 above, and further in view of Hooker et al. (Pub. No. US 2024/0193546 A1).
As to claims 3, 11 and 19 Bhargav as modified by Vijayaraghavan do not specifically disclose wherein the plurality of playbook prompts are Ansible playbooks, wherein Ansible is a human-readable programming language.
However, Hooker discloses wherein the plurality of playbook prompts are Ansible playbooks, wherein Ansible is a human-readable programming language (Hooker [0026] lines 3-7 and [0032] lines 10-15; which shows the code generated from the manual written policy input can include a plurality of Ansible playbooks infrastructure as code as output where the code is seen as writing in any suitable programming language, viewed as being human readable programming language).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Hooker showing the specifics of generating Ansible output from provided input information, into the generation of executable code from natural language input of Bhargav as modified by Vijayaraghavan for the purpose of increasing the adaptability of the code generation so that it can generate specific code for specific languages and platforms, as taught by Hooker [0027] lines 7-15.
Claims 4, 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhargav and Vijayaraghavan as applied to claims 1, 9 and 17 above, and further in view of Phoenix (Pub. No. US 2020/0073782 A1)
As to claims 4, 12 and 20 Bhargav does not specifically disclose, however, Vijayaraghavan discloses wherein the sustainability score for each of the plurality of playbook prompts is calculated based on one or more keywords (Vijayaraghavan [0006] lines 12-17, [0029] lines 1-24 and [0034] lines 1-8; which shows the energy efficiency metric for the code snippet/playbook prompt can be based on plurality of information include static and dynamic energy efficiency score and assessment data that is based on the software, environment and data demographics, viewed as keyword type information data values the describe to defect issues/defect capabilities associated with the energy efficiency of the code snippet).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Vijayaraghavan showing the specifics of calculating an energy efficiency metric score for a plurality of code snippets, into the generation of a plurality of executable code portions of Bhargav for the improving ability to recommend specific code portions for use based on associated energy efficiency metric of code as taught by Vijayaraghavan [0007] lines 1-5 and [0034] lines 1-13.
Bhargav as modified by Vijayaraghavan do not specifically disclose wherein the one or more keywords is found from searching through different services, states, metadata, applications, and versions of applications utilized by the corresponding playbook prompts.
However, Phoenix discloses wherein the one or more keywords is found from searching through different services, states, metadata, applications, and versions of applications utilized by the corresponding playbook prompts (Phoenix [0023] lines 1-23; which shows the specifics of search for capabilities of the software/code associated with keywords/data values that can be search for/found in associated software application, application software version and associated data/metadata information viewed as including the associate application services and states associated with the generated code/playbook prompts seen specifically disclosed in the teachings of Bhargav above, that in light of the teachings of Vijayaraghavan above showing the specifics of being able to search/identify data associated with the code snippet of software used to determine the sustainability score can together be viewed as disclosed the specifics of wherein the sustainability score for each of the plurality of playbook prompts is calculated based on one or more keywords wherein the one or more keywords is found from searching through different services, states, metadata, applications, and versions of applications utilized by the corresponding playbook prompts).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Phoenix showing the specifics of being able to search for keyword in application software data associated with specific capabilities, into the searching of data associated with defect capabilities of the software of Bhargav as modified by Vijayaraghavan for the purpose of being able to increase the amount of additional software data for detail capabilities associated with the generated code based on further additional analysis of software code information, as taught by Phoenix [0023] lines 1-23.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhargav and Vijayaraghavan as applied to claims 5 and 13 above, and further in view of Franklin et al. (Pub. No. US 12,175,438 B1)
As to claims 6 and 14 Bhargav as modified by Vijayaraghavan do not specifically disclose wherein the trained prediction model was trained using historical playbook prompts and sustainability scores assigned to each of the using historical playbook prompts.
However, Franklin discloses wherein the trained prediction model was trained using historical playbook prompts and sustainability scores assigned to each of the using historical playbook prompts (Franklin Col. 18 lines 38-46; which shows the ability to train a machine learning model/prediction model based on historic data input where metadata associated with the training input can include score values of the input data as well).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Franklin showing the specifics of training the machine learning model based on historic input with assigned score values, into the trained machine learning model to use to generate energy efficiency/sustainability score associated with code of Bhargav as modified by Vijayaraghavan for the purpose of increasing the detail and accuracy of the generated machine learning model by providing additional input data used for its initial training, as taught by Franklin Col. 18 lines 38-46.
Claims 7-8 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhargav and Vijayaraghavan as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Macleod et al. (Pub. No. US 2017/0075790 A1)
As to claims 7 and 15 Bhargav as modified by Vijayaraghavan do not specifically disclose further comprising assigning a sustainability level to each of the plurality of playbook prompts based on the sustainability score corresponding to each of the plurality of playbook prompts, wherein the sustainability level is selected from one of a high level of sustainability, a medium level of sustainability, and a low level of sustainability.
However, Macleod discloses further comprising assigning a sustainability level to each of the plurality of playbook prompts based on the sustainability score corresponding to each of the plurality of playbook prompts, wherein the sustainability level is selected from one of a high level of sustainability, a medium level of sustainability, and a low level of sustainability (Macleod [0077] lines 1-12 and [0079] lines 1-8; which shows for a calculated score associated with code being able to color that can reflect an associated level of the scores in specific ranges that can include high, medium and low levels associated with code scores, that in light of the above teachings of Vijayaraghavan above showing the specifics of calculating an sustainability/energy efficiency score for code can together be viewed as showing assigning a sustainability level to each of the plurality of playbook prompts based on the sustainability score corresponding to each of the plurality of playbook prompts, wherein the sustainability level is selected from one of a high level of sustainability, a medium level of sustainability, and a low level of sustainability)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Macleod showing the specifics of being able to assign/associate the score value associated with code to a specific level into the calculating code energy efficiency of Bhargav as modified by Vijayaraghavan providing more details and increase the adaptability as to how information about the calculated score is determined and displayed, as taught by Macleod [0079] lines 1-8.
As to claims 8 and 16, Bhargav as modified by Vijayaraghavan do not specifically disclose, however, Macleod discloses wherein the one or more of the plurality of playbook prompts are offered to the user in a color-coded manner, where a color of the one or more of the plurality of playbook prompts is selected based on the sustainability level (Macleod [0055] lines 1-5, [0077] lines 1-12, [0079] lines 1-8 and [0080] lines 1-6; which shows for a calculated score associated with code being able to color that can reflect an associated level of the scores in specific ranges that can include high, medium and low levels associated with code scores where the information generated as part of the code review is associated with the risk score and displayed, that in light of the above teachings of Vijayaraghavan above showing the specifics of calculating an sustainability/energy efficiency score for code and the selection of specific code portion of can together be viewed as showing wherein the one or more of the plurality of playbook prompts are offered to the user in a color-coded manner, where a color of the one or more of the plurality of playbook prompts is selected based on the sustainability level).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Macleod showing the specifics of being able to assign/associate the score value associated with code to a specific level into the calculating code energy efficiency of Bhargav as modified by Vijayaraghavan providing more details and increase the adaptability as to how information about the calculated score is determined and displayed, as taught by Macleod [0079] lines 1-8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADFORD F WHEATON whose telephone number is (571)270-1779. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 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, Chat Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. 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.
/BRADFORD F WHEATON/Examiner, Art Unit 2193