DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed May 27, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are pending. Applicant amends independent claim 1 to include limitations of claim 11 which are not taught in the prior art of record. Applicant amends claim 15 to become an independent claim which recites limitations not taught in the prior art (“one or more hip points by determining the widest bin amongst the number of bins”). Thus, each prior art rejection previously applied has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcome the rejection to claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant’s amendments and argument are insufficient overcome the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument:
“However, amended claim 1 does not claim a mathematical formula or merely the output of a mathematical calculation. The claim is directed to a particular processing of distance-based sensor data to identify spine-area points of a bovine animal in a sensor-coordinate system and to use the resulting feature vector to generate a gait pattern and determine a severity-based lameness parameter.”
As per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).I.C:
“That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation. The Specification explains that such processing is tied to 3D sensor data, spine points, point clouds, distance thresholds, and height levels, rather than a disembodied mathematical formula. See Spec. T 0072 to 0074 and 0122.”
Each independent claim recites steps of performing a series of evaluations on sensor data (feature data generation involving division into bins, association with corresponding anatomy of an animal, identifying points smaller than a threshold, generation of a gait pattern from such feature vector). That is, a series of implicit mathematical operations is claimed, and a resulting variable (i.e., a “lameness parameter”) is obtained via such evaluations. Citations to the Specification regarding concepts being “tied to 3D sensor data, spine points, point clouds, distance thresholds, and height levels” appear to describe the implicit mathematical evaluations identified (e.g., evaluating sensor data relative to a threshold, percentile calculations, generation of a map or contour or plotting a series of points in feature space, all of which are mathematical concepts). Examiner maintains that the claim recites limitations directed to a series of evaluations amounting to mathematical concepts.
Regarding Applicant’s argument:
“Claim 1 also is not directed to a certain method of organizing human activity.”
Examiner agrees; this position was not made in the previous Office Action.
Regarding Applicant’s argument:
“The claim recites dividing the sensor data into bins associated with a width and a length along an x-axis of the sensor, wherein the x-axis is substantially aligned with a spine of the bovine animal. The claim further recites determining, for each bin, as a spine point, a highest point on a z-axis of the sensor, and including, for each bin and for each spine point, one or more points having a distance to the spine point smaller than a distance threshold. These operations are not merely an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion that can practically be performed in the human mind. They require processing distance-based sensor data, identifying points in a sensor-coordinate system, and generating a technical feature vector from the processed sensor data.
This is not a claim to a person watching a cow and mentally deciding that the cow is lame. The claim instead recites a specific electronic implementation for extracting a spine-area representation from distance-based sensor data and using that feature vector to generate a gait pattern.”
Applicant’s argument amounts to mere allegation that the claimed steps cannot be performed in the mind. A human mind is capable of dividing data into “bins” (e.g., an elevation map may be divided into grid squares for location referencing). A human mind is capable of identifying a highest point (e.g., within each grid square of an elevation map, the legend and color-coding of the map indicate the greatest height in the z-direction, elevation). A human mind is capable of associating those highest points to a feature (e.g., a peak of a mountain shown on an elevation map). A human mind is capable of identifying a distances relative to the highest point within a certain threshold (e.g., the area surrounding the peak of the mountain). Each of these operations are a combination of observing acquired data (e.g., visually seeing an elevation map with grid squares) and performing a series of evaluations (e.g., differentiating elevation and identifying a maximum and surrounding elevations). The fact that the claims require distance-based sensor data mean that the human mind is required to produce such data; rather, receiving such data is a step of necessary data-gathering for the judicial exception. Examiner does not take the position that the claim amounts to observing a cow and deciding that the cow is lame; rather, each step in determining that a cow from a well-understood, routine, and conventional sensor amounts to steps which can be practically performed by pen-and-paper practice or in the mind. Applicant argues that the claim is directed to a specific electronic implementation for the abstract idea but does not identify how the specifics of such electronic implementation are directed to more than a general purpose computer carrying out evaluation steps on gathered data from known sensors.
Regarding Applicant’s argument:
“In other words, the recited bins are part of a specific sensor-data processing technique for identifying spine-area information from distance- based sensor data. The claimed binning is therefore not merely a mental arrangement of information, but is part of a technical processing pipeline for generating a feature vector used in gait analysis.”
The phrase “technical processing pipeline” appears to amount to no more than carrying out the abstract idea evaluation of data binning (i.e., grouping continuous data into discrete intervals, categories, or arrangements) on a general purpose computer. No part of the specificity of the technique requires the method to be performed by a particular machine or technology beyond that of requisite known sensors and generic computers.
Regarding Applicant’s argument:
“Claim 1 recites a practical application in the field of electronic animal monitoring and gait analysis. The claim recites a particular process for generating a feature vector from distance-based sensor data by using bins aligned with the bovine animal's spine, determining highest z-axis points as spine points, and including points within a distance threshold of those spine points. The claim then uses the resulting feature vector to generate a gait pattern, determine a severity-based lameness parameter, and transmit a notification when the lameness parameter exceeds a threshold… The claimed notification is therefore not insignificant post-solution activity. Rather, the notification is part of the claimed practical animal-monitoring application. Claim 1 determines a lameness parameter indicative of a degree of severity of lameness and transmits a notification in response to the lameness parameter exceeding a threshold. This provides a concrete result in the animal monitoring system, namely notifying a user or system when the detected lameness severity warrants attention.”
The identified processes above are abstract evaluations, whereby transmitting a notification is extra-solution data output based on results of processing. Applicant does not discuss any element which is additional to that of abstract processes which would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The analysis and output of a “lameness parameter” is akin to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, see Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Regarding Applicant’s argument:
“Claim 1 also improves the processing of sensor data for gait analysis. Amended claim 1 specifies how the sensor data is processed to generate the feature vector, including sensor-axis binning, highest z-axis spine-point determination, and distance-threshold inclusion of points around the spine points. These features are directed to a particular technical solution for extracting useful anatomical information from distance-based sensor data before generating the gait pattern.”
Each of the above-discussed aspects of the invention are the portions which are identified as purely abstract. As per MPPE 2106.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements.” Here, Applicant does not discuss elements which are additional to (i.e., other than) the abstract idea which may be used to furnish an improvement. Combining additional elements such as causing an interface to output a notification amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution data output.
Regarding Applicant’s argument:
“The practical and technical nature of the amendment is further supported by the Office's own prior art discussion. The Office noted that the prior art of record did not teach or suggest the particular features involving binning and identifying the highest point in each bin as a spine point and further determining one or more points having a distance to the spine point smaller than a distance threshold. See OA at p. 16. Applicant does not contend that novelty alone establishes eligibility. However, the Office's analysis confirms that the amended features are not merely a generic instruction to collect and analyze data, but instead recite a particular novel technical implementation for extracting spine-area features from sensor data, which is not disclosed in the prior art.”
See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 714-15, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1753-54 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Cf. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea”) (emphasis in original).
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 1-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Each claim has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of the claims recites steps or instructions for ascertaining and processing data to assess quality of sleep of subject, which is grouped as a mental process. Accordingly, each of the claims recites an abstract idea.
Independent claim 1 recites:
An electronic device comprising memory circuitry, processor circuitry, and an interface (additional element),
wherein the electronic device is configured to:
obtain sensor data from a sensor, wherein the sensor data is indicative of one or more distances associated with the bovine animal in the environment (data-gathering, additional element);
generate, based on the sensor data, a feature vector, wherein the generation of the feature vector comprises dividing the sensor data into a number of bins associated with a width and a length along an x-axis of the sensor, wherein the x-axis is substantially aligned with a spine of the bovine animal; and
determining one or more spine points corresponding to a spine area of the bovine animal by:
- determining, for each bin, as a spine point of the one or more spine points, a highest point on a z-axis of the sensor; and
- including, for each bin, for each spine point, as part of the one or more spine points, one or more points that have a distance to the spine point that is smaller than a distance threshold (evaluation);
generate, based on the feature vector, a gait pattern indicative of a gait of the bovine animal (evaluation); and
determine, based on the gait pattern, the lameness parameter being indicative of a degree of severity of lameness of the bovine animal (evaluation); and
transmit a notification of the lameness parameter, in response to the lameness parameter exceeding a threshold (extra-solution data output, evaluation).
Independent claim 15 recites similar limitations and further specifies determining one or more hip points rather than spine points recited in claim 1; however, such a step is still a part of an evaluation.
Independent claim 20 recites the limitations of claim 1, mutatis mutandis, as a method claim; thus, the analysis of claim 1 applies analogously to claim 20.
As indicated above, the independent claims recite at least one step or instruction grouped as a mental process. Therefore, each of the independent claims recites an abstract idea. Each limitation, aside from language reciting a generic computer components, can be grouped as a mental process (see italicized portions above), and is addressed as follows:
The limitation of generate, based on the sensor data, a feature vector… encompasses an individual observing data gathered from a generically-recited sensor and performing evaluation thereon to yield features (i.e., identification of any distinctive attribute from the gathered data). A vector is merely an ordered, finite sequence of such identified features. Furthermore, see response to arguments regarding specifics of how each “determining” step can be performed mentally or by pen-and-paper.
The limitation of generate, based on the feature vector, a gait pattern indicative of a gait of the bovine animal encompasses an individual performing further evaluation on the previously identified feature vector to determine a gait pattern in any suitable manner. Since both the data gathered and the feature vector are broadly recited, this encompasses an individual observing, e.g., a series of sequential frames from a video of a bovine animal subject, identifying how the subject’s legs move, and determining a pattern therefrom based on the timestamps of the video frames, and then performing a judgement as to whether or not such a pattern can be determined to be lameness (defined by Applicant at Paragraph 0039 as “an abnormal gait”). Determination of abnormality would merely require prior knowledge of how the animal subject or another member of the species would typically move.
The act of transmitting encompasses outputting a result after the abstract process of evaluating whether the parameter exceeds a threshold.
No limitations are provided that would force the complexity of any of the identified evaluation steps to be non-performable by pen-and-paper practice.
Alternatively or additionally, these steps describe the concept of using implicit mathematical formula(s) (i.e., evaluation of machine learning models) to derive a conclusion based on input of medical data, which corresponds to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts, such as in Diamond v. Diehr. 450 U.S. 175, 209 U.S.P.Q. 1 (1981), Parker v. Flook. 437 U.S. 584, 19 U.S.P.Q. 193 (1978), and In re Grams. 888 F.2d 835, 12 U.S.P.Q.2d 1824 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The concept of the recited steps above is not meaningfully different than those mathematical concepts found by the courts to be abstract ideas.
The dependent claims merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (e.g. limitations relating to the data gathered or particular steps which are entirely embodied in the mental process) and amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed. Particularly, claims 10-18 describe evaluations performed via “bins associated with a width and length along an x-axis of the sensor;” however, a “bin” merely refers to a particular arrangement of data, whereby evaluations thereon are still considered mental processes carried out through a generically-recited computing device.
Thus, these concepts are similar to court decisions of abstract ideas of itself: collecting, displaying, and manipulating data (Int. Ventures v. Cap One Financial), collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group), collection, storage, and recognition of data (Smart Systems Innovations).
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
More specifically:
Independent claims 1, 15, and 20 both recite the following additional elements:
electronic device comprising memory circuitry, processor circuitry, and an interface;
a sensor.
Such additional element are a generically recited elements which do not improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field. The claim recites merely acquiring data from a generically recited sensor, having no operative connection to the electronic device besides communication of obtained data, which amounts to insignificant, extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, which does not constitute an integration into a practical application. Although the sensors may imply particular structure, their use in the mental process is merely extra-solution. See MPEP 2106.05(b).III:
“Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more. See Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610, 95 USPQ2d at 1009 (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978)), and CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1370, 99 USPQ2d 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citations omitted)”
The electronic device comprising memory circuitry, processor circuitry, and an interface is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., encompassing components known to comprise a generic computer recited to perform generic computer functions of performing calculations, storing and interfacing with data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer.
Thus, such additional elements do not serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment (processing of sensor data for gait analysis), such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified generically recited elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., electronic device comprising memory circuitry, processor circuitry, and an interface as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract ideas identified above in the independent claims (and their respective dependent claims) are not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2 and 3 recite that the sensor of claim 1 may be either a “three-dimensional camera” or a “Time of Flight camera;” however, such further detail regarding the sensor does not serve to elevate the sensor to a component beyond a machine which is directed to a mere data gathering step.
Each other dependent claim merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea, and do not recite additional elements to the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claims are each directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
None of the claims include additional elements that, when viewed as a whole, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons:
Independent claims 1 recites:
electronic device comprising memory circuitry, processor circuitry, and an interface;
a sensor.
The additional elements identified above encompass additional elements identified in independent claim 20; thus, the analysis of additional elements of claim 1 applies analogously to additional elements recited in claim 20.
In considering the electronic device, Applicant’s Paragraph 0047 recites “The electronic devices disclosed herein (such as in Figs. 9 and 11) may be implemented in a monitoring electronic device such as device 300, 300A, and/or in a remote device, such as remove device 400.” A remote device is defined earlier at Paragraph 0045 as “The remote device 400 may be one or more of: a back-office device (such as, a computer, a laptop, a PC, a tablet, and/or a mobile phone) and a server device (such as, part of a cloud architecture).” Thus, the additional element of an electronic device comprising memory circuitry, processor circuitry, and an interface is directed a general purpose computer.
In considering the sensor configured to obtain sensor data “indicative of one or more distances associated with the bovine animal and the environment” as claimed, Applicant’s Paragraph 0186 describes that “the sensor can be one or more of: a structured light 3D camera, a Time-of-flight, ToF, camera, a 3D camera, a stereo 3D camera, a Light Detection and Ranging, LiDAR, camera, a 3D scanning system, and any other suitable 3D camera. In one or more example methods, the sensor is a Time of Flight, ToF, camera.” Applicant’s disclosure is not particular regarding the particular structure of any one of these possible sensors. No special programming or algorithms is indicated for how such sensors operate. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the imaging/distance sensing arts. Thus, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in imaging/distance sensing technology. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional element because it describes such an additional element in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear from the claims themselves and the specification that these limitations require no improved computer resources and merely utilize already available computers and known sensors with their already available basic functions to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Dependent claims 2 and 3 recite particular sensors. See analysis of Applicant’s Paragraph 00186 above.
Each other dependent claim merely recites steps which further define the abstract idea and data/data-processing steps. Examiner notes that the dependent claims recite limitations which are extra-solution or part of the abstract idea itself do not constitute significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(a):
It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) (discussing Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303-04, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1285-87 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Thus, it is important for examiners to analyze the claim as a whole when determining whether the claim provides an improvement to the functioning of computers or an improvement to other technology or technical field.
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in the claims amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or are directed to extra-solution activity. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
For at least the above reasons, the claims are directed to applying an abstract idea on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself, or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field. In other words, none of the claims provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in the independent claims do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (processing of sensor data). That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, the above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the claims merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself, or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field.
Therefore, none of the claims amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 12, 13, and 13-18 are not provided with prior art rejections. The following limitations are not taught or suggested in the prior arts of record:
Claim 12 recites a particular method involving binning and identifying the highest point in each bin as a spine point and further determination of one or more points having a distance to the spine point smaller than a distance threshold.
Claim 13 (as best understood) recites that the generation of the feature vector comprises determining, for each spine point, the feature vector for a height level based on a length of a bin for each spine point, wherein the height level corresponds to the distance threshold.
Claim 15 recites determination of the one or more hip points comprises determining the widest bin amongst the number of bins.
Claims 16-18 are dependent upon claim 15 and thus recite limitations of claim 15 which are not presented with prior art rejections.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN XU whose telephone number is (571)272-6617. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571) 272-4233. 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.
/JUSTIN XU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights