DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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.
Claim 2 – 4, 11 and 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 line 5, claim 2 line 6, claim 10 line 3 and claim 11 lines 4 - 5 recite the limitation “second task” making it impossible to be certain if the later introduced instances in claims 2 and 11 intend to introduce new instances of the limitation or to depend on the initial instances in claims 1 and 10 (from which claims 2 and 11 depend from respectively). For claim interpretation purposes the later instances are read as “the second task.”
Claims 3 and 4 depend on indefinite claim 2 and are therefore also indefinite.
Claim 12 depends on indefinite claim 11 and is therefore also indefinite.
Claim 4 line 5 recites the limitation of “the other control instruction.” This limitation lacks antecedent basis rendering this limitation indefinite. For claim interpretation purposes this limitation is read as “the another control instruction” (see also claim 4 line 5).
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 ide without significantly more.
Step 1: claim 1 recites “a system comprising: a processor; and a machine-readable storage medium comprising instructions executable by the processor” which is a manufacture. Claim 10 recites “a method comprising: obtaining a correlation parameter associated with a first task …” which is a method/process. Claim 17 recites “a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions, the instructions being executable by a processing resource of a system” which is a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 1, 10 and 17 recite “determine,” “determining” and “determine” respectively, which specifically recite (from claim 1) “determine a first status information and second status information pertaining to the first task and second task, respectively, wherein the first status information and the second status information is to indicate whether any one of the first task and the second task are pending;” and (from claim 10) “determining a first status information and second status information pertaining to the first task and second task, respectively, wherein the first status information and the second status information is to indicate whether any one of the first task and the second task are pending;” and (from claim 17) “determine a first status information and second status information pertaining to the first task and second task, respectively, wherein the first status information and the second status information is to indicate whether any one of the first task and the second task are pending;.” These limitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components and functions. That is, other than reciting (from claim 1) “a system comprising: a processor; and a machine-readable storage medium comprising instructions executable by the processor,” “a correlation parameter” and “generate a visual indicator” (form claim 10) “a correlation parameter” and “generate a visual indicator” (from claim 17) “a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions, the instructions being executable by a processing resource of a system”, “a dashboard user interface onto a display coupled to the system,” “a correlation parameter” and “generate a visual indicator on the dashboard” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, “determine” and “determining,” in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper writing the changes down on a sheet of paper and examine the list to identify the relevant ones (rationale, utilizing a mental process of judgement).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recites the additional elements (from claim 1) “a system comprising: a processor; and a machine-readable storage medium comprising instructions executable by the processor,” “a correlation parameter” and “generate a visual indicator” (form claim 10) “a correlation parameter” and “generate a visual indicator” (from claim 17) “a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions, the instructions being executable by a processing resource of a system”, “a dashboard user interface onto a display coupled to the system,” “a correlation parameter” and “generate a visual indicator on the dashboard.” these limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). This/these claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations (from claim 1) “an artificial intelligence (AI) based system,” “an API database,” “an API platform,” “a generative AI model stored on one or more memories and executable by one or more processor” (form claim 12) “one or more processors, an API call data stream of one or more API calls from a user device,” “a set of computer-executable instructions stored on the one or more memories that when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors,” (from claim 22) “non-transitory computer-readable medium storing processor-executable instructions for dynamically generating optimized application programming interfaces (APIs), the instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to at least,” (from claims 1, 12 and 22) “update the API platform to implement the optimized API, wherein the API platform is configured to,” and “receive and respond to calls from one or more client devices” these limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv).
As such, claims 1, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 2 – 9, 11 - 16 and 18 – 20 depend from claims 1, 10 and 17 and do not add additional elements that would overcome the rejection of claims 1, 10 and 17 and are rejected for at least this reason and the analysis below:
2. The system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the instructions are executable to further: generate a control instruction if the second status information is to indicate that the second task is pending, wherein the control instruction when executed is to cause initiation of the second task (insignificant extra solution activity – generic computer processing and/or data usage); and monitor the second status information to ascertain completion of second task (insignificant extra solution activity – mental process, observation)
3. The system as claimed in claim 2, wherein to generate the control instruction, the instructions are executable to further: determine a task related parameter corresponding to the second task (insignificant extra solution activity – generic computer processing and/or data usage); identify a process workflow comprising an underlying parameter corresponding to the task related parameter (insignificant extra solution activity – mental process, judgement); and generate the control instruction based on the identified process workflow (insignificant extra solution activity – generic computer processing and/or data usage)
4. The system as claimed in claim 2, wherein on completion of the second task, the instructions are executable to cause one of: generate a visual prompt for a user of the system, wherein the visual prompt is to intimate completion of the second task and to initiate the first task; and generate another control instruction, wherein the other control instruction is to initiate the first task, another set of tasks, or a combination thereof (insignificant extra solution activity – generic computer processing and/or data usage)
5. The system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the correlation parameter associated with the first task is defined based on one of a user input and a set of predefined rules, wherein the predefined rules specify a set of criteria related to the first task and the second task (insignificant extra solution activity – data entry)
6. The system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the correlation parameter associated with the first task is determined based on a machine learning based correlation model, wherein the correlation model is trained based on training data comprising a set of training tasks with each of the set of training tasks linked to a corresponding dependent task (insignificant extra solution activity – generic computer processing and/or data usage)
7. The system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the instructions are executable to: render a dashboard user interface onto a communicatively coupled display, wherein the dashboard user interface is to provide a first display element and a second display element, wherein: the first display element corresponds to a first monitoring application monitoring the first task; and the second display element corresponds to a second monitoring application monitoring the second task (insignificant extra solution activity – generic computer processing and/or data usage)
8. The system as claimed in claim 7, wherein the instructions are executable to: render, onto the dashboard user interface, an information section, and an element section, wherein the element section lists a set of dynamic information elements, static information elements, and control elements; enable selection, through user input, of an element from the set of the dynamic information elements, the static information elements, and the control elements; and cause to add the element on the selection, to the information section (insignificant extra solution activity – generic computer processing and/or data usage, entry and selection)
9. The system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the visual indicator comprises a common shape, common color, common annotation, a notional connector, or a combination thereof, rendered on a communicatively coupled display (insignificant extra solution activity – generic computer data display)
11. The method as claimed in claim 10, wherein the method comprises: generating a control instruction to cause initiation of the second task upon second status information indicating that the second task is pending (insignificant extra solution activity – generic computer processing and/or data usage); and monitoring the second status information to ascertain completion of second task (insignificant extra solution activity – mental process, observation)
12. The method as claimed in claim 11, wherein the generating the control instructions comprises: determining a task related parameter corresponding to the second task (insignificant extra solution activity – mental process, judgement); identifying a process workflow comprising an underlying parameter corresponding to the task related parameter (insignificant extra solution activity – mental process, judgement); and generating the control instructions based on the identified process workflow (insignificant extra solution activity – generic computer data processing)
13. The method as claimed in claim 10, wherein to obtain the correlation parameter, the method comprises: determining a user identifier of a user logging into the dashboard user interface (insignificant extra solution activity – mental process, judgement); ascertaining, based on the user identifier, whether the user is authorized to access one of the first task and the second task (insignificant extra solution activity – mental process, judgement); and displaying the first task and the second task to the user on the dashboard user interface based on the ascertaining (insignificant extra solution activity – generic computer data display)
14. The method as claimed in claim 11, wherein the method comprises generating an intermediate authorization credential for the user on ascertaining that the user is not authorized to access any one of the first task and the second task (insignificant extra solution activity – mental process, judgement), wherein the intermediate authorization credential is generated based on an organizational role of the user, historical access data representing that the user has previously accessed one of the first task and the second task a predefined number of times, predefined rules defining a set of access parameters, a determined workload of the user, or combination thereof (insignificant extra solution activity – generic computer processing and/or data usage)
15. The method as claimed in claim 10, wherein the method comprises: rendering the dashboard user interface onto a communicatively coupled display, wherein the dashboard user interface is to provide: a first display element corresponding to a first monitoring application monitoring the first task; and a second display element corresponding to a second monitoring application monitoring the second task (insignificant extra solution activity – generic data display)
16. The method as claimed in claim 15, wherein the rendering the dashboard user interface comprises: determining a user identifier of a user seeking to interact with the dashboard user interface (insignificant extra solution activity – mental process, judgement); providing, onto the dashboard user interface, an information section, and an element section, wherein the element section lists a set of dynamic information elements, static information elements, and control elements, wherein the set of dynamic information elements, static information elements, and control elements is provided based on the user identifier (insignificant extra solution activity – generic data display); receiving a selection, through user input from the user, of an element from the set of the dynamic information elements, the static information elements, and the control elements (insignificant extra solution activity – generic data transfer); and adding the element, in response to the selection received through the user input, to the information section (insignificant extra solution activity – generic data entry)
18. The non-transitory computer-readable medium as claimed in claim 17, wherein the instructions being executable are to: render, onto the dashboard user interface, an information section, and an element section, wherein the element section lists a set of dynamic information elements, static information elements, and control elements; enable selection, through user input, of any element from the set of the dynamic information elements, the static information elements, and the control elements (insignificant extra solution activity – generic data display); and cause to add the element, in response to the selection, to the information section (insignificant extra solution activity – generic data entry)
19. The non-transitory computer-readable medium as claimed in claim 17, wherein the instructions being executable are to: determine a task related parameter corresponding to the second task (insignificant extra solution activity – mental process, judgement); identify a process workflow comprising an underlying parameter corresponding to the task related parameter (insignificant extra solution activity – mental process, judgement); generate the control instructions based on the identified process workflow, wherein control instructions are to cause initiation of the second task upon second status information indicating that the second task is pending (insignificant extra solution activity – generic data processing and/or usage) ; and monitor the second status information to ascertain completion of the second task (insignificant extra solution activity – mental process, observation)
20. The non-transitory computer-readable medium as claimed in claim 19, wherein the instructions being executable are to: determine a task related parameter corresponding to the first task, upon completion of the second task (insignificant extra solution activity – mental process, judgement); identify a process workflow comprising an underlying parameter corresponding to the task related parameter; generate the control instructions based on the identified process workflow, wherein control instructions are to cause initiation of the first task as the second status information indicates that the second task is completed (insignificant extra solution activity – mental process, judgement); and monitor the first status information to ascertain completion of first task (insignificant extra solution activity – mental process, observation).
21. The computer-implemented method of claim 12, wherein the user-specific API transaction data includes one or more of API request data, API response data, an API transaction type, or an API method (insignificant extra solution activity – generic data usage and processing).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4 – 7, 9 - 11, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Burleson et al. (hereinafter Burleson, US 2019/0213509).
Regarding claim 1, Burleson discloses:
a system comprising:
a processor; and
a machine-readable storage medium comprising instructions executable by the processor (see at least Fig. 1 for such a system) to:
for a first task and a second task of a process implemented within an organization (the entity utilizing the system of Fig. 1 where the organization may be a trucking company as per the example of a truck driver in at least ph. [0126]), obtain a correlation parameter associated with the first task, wherein the correlation parameter is to link the first task to the second task and is to indicate that initiation of the first task is to be caused upon completion of the second task (see at least ph. [0024] for the impact score applying to any number of tasks (including first and second tasks) where the degree of negative impact on other dependent tasks links tasks to each other through the dependency relationship and where one task is performed after the other task, and therefore a first task may be performed after its associated second task is completed);
determine a first status information and second status information pertaining to the first task and second task, respectively, wherein the first status information and the second status information is to indicate whether any one of the first task and the second task are pending (see at least ph. [0126] for the tasks of loading and order filling where the loader task is waiting for the filling task to complete, therefore the status is waiting/pending and/or in processing states for these tasks);
process the correlation parameter, the first status information and the second status information to determine a correlated status of the first task with respect to the second task (see at least Fig. 12 and ph. [0163] – [0167] and in particular to ph. [0165] where the dependency chain for the respective tasks (including first and second tasks) is created and the relative impact scores between the tasks); and
cause to generate a visual indicator based on the correlated status of the first task, wherein the visual indicator is to depict a logical association of a pendency of the first task with a pendency of the second task (see at least Fig. 14 and ph. [0172] for the example of a dashboard display of a trailer arriving (was a task that needed to be completed) and a query of if a person should be assigned to unload the now arrived trailer (unloading being a task that had to wait for the arrival of the trailer task to be completed before the unloading task may start)).
Claim 10 is a method version of claim 1 and is similarly rejected where at least Fig. 12 and 13 indicate the presence of a method of the references teachings.
Regarding claim 17, Burleson discloses:
a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions, the instructions being executable by a processing resource of a system, (see at least Fig. 1 for a system with such a medium and instructions that are used executed by processing resources of the computing system illustrated) to:
provide a dashboard user interface onto a communicatively coupled display (see at least Fig. 14 and ph. [0126] where this is displayed on a device that gets information via the system network in at least Fig. 1), wherein the dashboard user interface is to depict a first task of a process implemented within an organization (see at least Fig. 14, for door planning routing task as part of a trucking operation as per at least ph. [0126]);
retrieve a correlation parameter associated with the first task, wherein the correlation parameter is to link the first task to the second task and is to indicate that initiation of the first task is to be caused upon completion of the second task (see at least ph. [0024] for the impact score applying to any number of tasks (including first and second tasks) where the degree of negative impact on other dependent tasks links tasks to each other through the dependency relationship and where one task is performed after the other task, and therefore a first task may be performed after its associated second task is completed);
determine a first status information and second status information pertaining to the first task and second task, respectively, wherein the first status information and the second status information is to indicate whether any one of the first task and the second task are pending (see at least ph. [0126] for the tasks of loading and order filling where the loader task is waiting for the filling task to complete, therefore the status is waiting/pending and/or in processing states for these tasks);
process the correlation parameter, the first status information and the second status information to determine a correlated status of the first task with respect to the second task (see at least Fig. 12 and ph. [0163] – [0167] and in particular to ph. [0165] where the dependency chain for the respective tasks (including first and second tasks) is created and the relative impact scores between the tasks); and
generate a visual indicator based on the correlated status of the first task, wherein the visual indicator is to depict a logical association of a pendency of the first task with a pendency of the second task (see at least Fig. 14 and ph. [0172] for the example of a dashboard display of a trailer arriving (was a task that needed to be completed) and a query of if a person should be assigned to unload the now arrived trailer (unloading being a task that had to wait for the arrival of the trailer task to be completed before the unloading task may start)).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, the rejections of claims 1 and 10 are incorporated and Burleson discloses:
generate/generating a control instruction if the second status information is to indicate that the second task is pending, wherein the control instruction when executed is to cause initiation of the second task (see at least Fig. 14 and ph. [0172] for the example of a dashboard display of a trailer arriving and a query of moving the trailer to door 291 (was a task that needed to be completed) and at that point to assign a person to unload the trailer) (unloading being a task that had to wait for the arrival of the trailer task to be completed before the unloading task may start) and the unloading occurs only after the moving to the proper door); and
monitor/monitoring the second status information to ascertain completion of second task (see at least Fig. 14 and ph. [0172] for the moving of the trailer, which much be accomplished for the other person to unload it, and therefore must be monitored to know when it is completed before the unloading may take effect, also notice the dashboard of Fig. 14 for the status of upcoming live unloads and completed live uploads indicating that the status of an unload task is monitored).
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated and Burleson discloses:
generate a visual prompt for a user of the system, wherein the visual prompt is to intimate completion of the second task and to initiate the first task (see at least Fig. 14 and ph. [0172] for the query by the system involving the arrival, moving and unloading of the trailer); and
generate another control instruction, wherein the other control instruction is to initiate the first task, another set of tasks, or a combination thereof (see at least Fig. 14 and ph. [0172] where the yes reply initiates the subsequent tasks of moving and instructing / assigning to unload).
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Burleson discloses:
the correlation parameter associated with the first task is defined based on one of a user input and a set of predefined rules (see at least ph. [0003] for historical data used to be used in the calculating of an impact score of effects between dependent tasks, and an that data needs to be entered by some user, directly or indirectly and the rules used by the algorithm in determining said score are known previously for the score to be generated at all), wherein the predefined rules specify a set of criteria related to the first task and the second task (see at least ph. [0003] for the set of child tasks dependent on the completion of a selected task).
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Burleson discloses:
the correlation parameter associated with the first task is determined based on a machine learning based correlation model, wherein the correlation model is trained based on training data comprising a set of training tasks with each of the set of training tasks linked to a corresponding dependent task (see at least ph. [0109] for discloses the machine learning component that considers training data, safety goals, historical safety data and variable weights that train the machine learning component as in at least ph. [0110] with an example including impart data (as an impact score in at least ph. [0024] is an example) and where such impact score establishes the weight of impact of one task that is dependent on other tasks).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, the rejections of claims 1 and 10 are incorporated and Burleson discloses:
render a dashboard user interface onto a communicatively coupled display (see at least Fig. 14 and ph. [0126] where this is displayed on a device that gets information via the system network in at least Fig. 1), wherein the dashboard user interface is to provide a first display element and a second display element (see at least Fig. 14, for door planning and upload statuses) wherein:
the first display element corresponds to a first monitoring application monitoring the first task (see at least Fig. 14, for door planning status); and
the second display element corresponds to a second monitoring application monitoring the second task (see at least Fig. 14, for the uploading status).
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Burleson discloses:
the visual indicator comprises a common shape, common color, common annotation, a notional connector, or a combination thereof, rendered on a communicatively coupled display (see at least Fig. 14 for the dashboard that is connected to the networked system of at least Fig. 1 and it has the alert generated in the shape of a rectangle).
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burleson et al. (hereinafter Burleson, US …) in view of Ziraknejad et al. (hereinafter Ziraknejad, US 10,769,262).
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated and Burleson discloses:
a dashboard user interface (see at least Fig. 14).
first and second tasks (see at least ph. [0024] for any number of tasks including second and first tasks); and
displaying the first task and the second task to the user on the dashboard user interface (see at least Fig. 14).
Burleson does not expressly disclose, however, Ziraknejad discloses:
determining a user identifier of a user logging into a user interface (see at least col. 7 ln. 38 for credentials used by a user entered into a user interface that may or may not be accessible depending on the credential-issuing organization and the user’s access rights);
ascertaining, based on the user credentials, whether the user is authorized to access (see at least col. 7 ln. 38 for credentials used by a user entered into a user interface that may or may not be accessible depending on the credential-issuing organization and the user’s access rights);
allowing access to a user (which requires a degree of user review of the features allowed access to (i.e. displaying it some form) based on the ascertaining (see at least col. 7 ln. 38 for credentials used by a user entered into a user interface that may or may not be accessible depending on the credential-issuing organization and the user’s access rights).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Burleson, by the teachings of Ziraknejad in order to allow only proper users that can be trusted with system information and system controls.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3, 8, 12, 14, 16, 18 - 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Other References Cited Not Relied Upon
Li et al. (US 2020/0409754) discloses queues of pending tasks reaching thresholds and tasks associated with different jobs with their own priority that determines the pendency of tasks.
Botelho (US 2019/0243683) discloses first jobs/tasks that determine when second jobs/tasks that comprise the next instance(s) of the first job need to run and that determines the job/task queue.
Krishnamoorthy (US 2021/0373941) discloses first and second tasks both associated with updating the same computer resource which then determines that one task depends upon and waits for the other task to complete before it.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CRAIG C DORAIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3371. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 6:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Vital can be reached at 5712724215. 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.
/CRAIG C DORAIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198
Prosecution Insights