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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 03/13/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Examiner’s Note
Please note that Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirely as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 objected to because of the following informalities: there appears to be a typographical error on line 18, the limitations “software cod” should have been “software code” instead. 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 non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 1, this claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directing to a method claim under Step 1.
1. A method of creating a software program structure for a project, the method comprising:
collecting a plurality of project inputs that includes a type of software program that is to be created and at least one of the following: client name, application/project name, database server name, database name, username, password, custom message, configuration key, and cache system key;
replacing at least one structure placeholder in the software program structure with first project information dependent upon the plurality of project inputs and at least one code placeholder in software code of the software program structure with second project information dependent upon the plurality of project inputs; and
providing the software program structure for the project that includes first project information and software code that include second project information, wherein the software code is fully runnable software code that does not require further editing.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “A method of creating a software program structure for a project,” “replacing at least one structure placeholder in the software program structure with first project information dependent upon the plurality of project inputs and at least one code placeholder in software code of the software program structure with second project information dependent upon the plurality of project inputs” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. For example, a software developer can mentally or manually with the aid of pen and paper gather project requirements, substitute code files and produce a complete codebase. Therefore, these limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, the additional elements “software code is fully runnable software code that does not require further editing” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions for executing/running the software code which merely using generic computing equipment to execute/run the software tools to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). For the additional elements “collecting a plurality of project inputs that includes a type of software program that is to be created and at least one of the following: client name, application/project name, database server name, database name, username, password, custom message, configuration key, and cache system key” and “providing the software program structure for the project that includes first project information and software code that include second project information” do nothing more than to add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely collecting/gathering/providing data for input to database structure. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “software code is fully runnable software code that does not require further editing” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer and/or computer components to carry out the exception, thus, cannot amount to an inventive concept. See MPEP 2105.06(f). For the additional elements “collecting a plurality of project inputs that includes a type of software program that is to be created and at least one of the following: client name, application/project name, database server name, database name, username, password, custom message, configuration key, and cache system key” and “providing the software program structure for the project that includes first project information and software code that include second project information” the courts have recognized storing information in memory as a well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or an insignificant extra-solution activity (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018)), thus, cannot amount to an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the step of replacing at least one structure placeholder in the software program structure and at least one code placeholder in software code of the software program structure further comprises: accessing a placeholder database that contains a list of the at least one structure placeholder and the at least one code placeholder in the software code of the software program structure.
The limitations for this claim further recite an additional insignificant extra solution activity under Prong 2 step 2A.
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising: selecting the software program structure from a software program structure database.
The limitations for this claim further recite an additional insignificant extra solution activity under Prong 1 step 2A.
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising: retrieving the software code from a software code database.
The limitations for this claim further recite an additional insignificant extra solution activity under Prong 2 step 2A.
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising: checking in the project that includes the software program structure and the software code into a client repository.
The limitations for this claim further recite an additional insignificant extra solution activity under Prong 1 step 2A.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the software program structure is one of the following: an application programming interface, a web application, a system software structure, and a desktop application.
The limitations for this claim further recite an additional insignificant extra solution activity under Prong 2 step 2A.
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising: accessing a placeholder database that contains a list of the at least one structure placeholder and the at least one code placeholder.
The limitations for this claim further recite an additional insignificant extra solution activity under Prong 2 step 2A.
8. The method of claim 7, further comprising: linking a first placeholder of the at least one structure placeholder to a first token in the placeholder database; associating a first project input of the plurality of project inputs with the first token; and replacing the first placeholder with the first project information dependent upon the first project input via the first token.
For the limitations linking a first placeholder of the at least one structure placeholder to a first token in the placeholder database; associating a first project input of the plurality of project inputs with the first token is an additional insignificant extra solution activity of merely linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, thus does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 1 step 2A. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The limitations replacing the first placeholder with the first project information dependent upon the first project input via the first token further recite an additional mental process under Prong 1 step 2A.
9. The method of claim 1, further comprising: selecting the software program structure dependent upon the type of software program that is to be created as collected in the plurality of project inputs.
The limitations for this claim further recite an additional insignificant extra solution activity under Prong 1 step 2A.
10. The method of claim 1, further comprising: selecting the software code within the software program structure dependent upon the type of software program that is to be created as collected in the plurality of project inputs.
The limitations for this claim further recite an additional insignificant extra solution activity under Prong 1 step 2A.
11. The method of claim 1, further comprising: adding additional software code specific to the project having the software program structure.
The limitations for this claim further recite an additional insignificant extra solution activity under Prong 1 step 2A.
12. The method of claim 11, wherein the software code within the software program structure includes template code configured to be used in writing additional software code specific to the project.
The limitations for this claim further recite an additional insignificant extra solution activity under Prong 2 step 2A.
Claim 13, this claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directing to a system claim under Step 1.
13. A system for creating a software program structure for a project, the system being located on computer hardware and comprising:
a project input file having a plurality of project inputs that includes a type of software program that is to be created and at least one of the following parameter inputs: client name, application/project name, database server name, database name, username, password, custom message, configuration key, and cache system key;
a placeholder database that contains a list of at least one structure placeholder in the software program structure and the at least one code placeholder in software code of the software program structure;
a structure creation module in communication with the project input file and the placeholder database, structure creation module having a computer processor and configured to replace the at least one structure placeholder in the software program structure with first project information dependent upon the plurality of project inputs and replace the at least one code placeholder in software code of the software program structure with second project information dependent upon the plurality of project inputs; and
the software program structure that includes the software code having the second project information with the software code being fully runnable software cod that does not require further editing.
Regarding claim 13, the limitations “creating a software program structure for a project,” “a placeholder database that contains a list of at least one structure placeholder in the software program structure and the at least one code placeholder in software code of the software program structure; a structure creation module in communication with the project input file and the placeholder database, structure creation module,” “and configured to replace the at least one structure placeholder in the software program structure with first project information dependent upon the plurality of project inputs and replace the at least one code placeholder in software code of the software program structure with second project information dependent upon the plurality of project inputs” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. For example, a software developer can mentally or manually with the aid of pen and paper gather project requirements, substitute code files and produce a complete codebase. Therefore, these limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, the additional elements “A system,” “computer hardware,” “having a computer processor,” and “the software program structure that includes the software code having the second project information with the software code being fully runnable software cod that does not require further editing” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions for executing/running the software code which merely using generic computing equipment to execute/run the software tools to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). For the additional elements “a project input file having a plurality of project inputs that includes a type of software program that is to be created and at least one of the following parameter inputs: client name, application/project name, database server name, database name, username, password, custom message, configuration key, and cache system key” do nothing more than to add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely collecting/gathering data for input to database structure. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “A system,” “computer hardware,” “having a computer processor,” and “the software program structure that includes the software code having the second project information with the software code being fully runnable software cod that does not require further editing” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer and/or computer components to carry out the exception, thus, cannot amount to an inventive concept. See MPEP 2105.06(f). For the additional elements “a project input file having a plurality of project inputs that includes a type of software program that is to be created and at least one of the following parameter inputs: client name, application/project name, database server name, database name, username, password, custom message, configuration key, and cache system key” the courts have recognized storing information in memory as a well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or an insignificant extra-solution activity (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018)), thus, cannot amount to an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
14. The system of claim 13, wherein the structure creation module further comprises:
a program structure database that includes at least one software program structure for the type of software program that is to be created.
The limitations for this claim further recite an additional insignificant extra solution activity under Prong 2 step 2A.
15. The system of claim 13, wherein the structure creation module further comprises:
a software code database from which a type of software program structure is retrieved dependent upon the plurality of project inputs.
The limitations for this claim further recite an additional insignificant extra solution activity under Prong 2 step 2A.
16. The system of claim 13, further comprising: a client repository to which the project having the software program structure including software code is checked in and stored.
The limitation for this claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer and/or mere computer components to carry out the exception under Prong 2 step 2A.
17. The system of claim 13, wherein the placeholder database includes at least one token that associates the plurality of project inputs with the at least one structure placeholder and the at least one code placeholder.
The limitations for this claim further recite an additional insignificant extra solution activity under Prong 2 step 2A.
18. The system of claim 13, wherein the structure creation module further comprising:
memory for storing a program structure database, a software code database, and the placeholder database.
The limitation for this claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer and/or mere computer components to carry out the exception under Prong 2 step 2A.
19. The system of claim 13, wherein the structure creation module further comprises:
a structure selection module configured to select the software program structure from a program structure database dependent upon the plurality of project inputs; a code selection module configured to select the software code from a software code database dependent upon the plurality of project inputs; and a placeholder substitution module configured to replace the at least on structure placeholder with first project information dependent upon the plurality of project inputs and replace the at least on code placeholder with second project information dependent upon the plurality of project inputs.
The limitations for this claim further recite an additional mental process under Prong 1 step 2A.
20. The system of claim 19, further comprising: template code configured to be used in writing additional software code specific to the project having the software program structure.
The limitations for this claim further recite an additional mental process under Prong 1 step 2A.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 11-16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 20070156754 to Busch et al. in view of USPN 20030093400 to Santosuosso et al.
Per claim 1:
Busch discloses:
1. A method of creating a software program structure for a project, the method comprising:
collecting a plurality of project inputs (here as explained in the specification [0015] that project inputs can be example parameter inputs 22 having client name 22A, see Paragraph [0037] “Upon the server receiving this command, the server creates an object reference for the selected database object 421… contains 1) an object identifier 146 associated with the selected database object 421, and 2) a user identifier 148 relating the reference to the user”)that includes a type of software program that is to be created (here the specification is silent on what is the “type of software program” is thus, examiner interprets it as creation of any type application, see Paragraph [0040] “database object 421 to the list of “Customers” 511 as new application data in the application, by creating a new “business partner”-type database object from an “opportunity”-type database object”) and at least one of the following: client name, application/project name, database server name, database name, username, password, custom message, configuration key, and cache system key (here the database objects are such as specific information about a company and their business practices, or information about clients that may be potential customers. The individual fields within the database objects can include information such as customer name, phone number, and address, see Paragraph [0003] and since this appears to be MARKUSH type language requiring at a minimum just one from the list, teaches see Paragraph [0030] “the list view display window 201, a user picks, or selects, a database object stored in application data 136A using a pointing device, keyboard input, a combination of inputs”); and
providing the software program structure for the project that includes first project information and software code that include second project information (Paragraph [0026] “database (i.e., structure) objects stored in the application data 136A of the first software application 134A… contact database objects stored in the application data 136A may include separate database fields for a company name, address, and a contact person at the company”), wherein the software code is fully runnable software code that does not require further editing (Paragraph [0020,0026] “software applications 134A and 134B each include stored application instructions (138A and 138B, respectively) that are made up of executable program instructions that are executed by a processor…”).
Busch does not explicitly disclose replacing at least one structure placeholder in the software program structure with first project information dependent upon the plurality of project inputs and at least one code placeholder in software code of the software program structure with second project information dependent upon the plurality of project inputs.
However, Santosuosso discloses in an analogous computer system replacing at least one structure placeholder in the software program structure with first project information dependent upon the plurality of project inputs (here the placeholder is database tables which are replaced/updates of the database software program structure, see Paragraph [0028, 0038] “a browser by accepting an input for an IP address of the client system running a browser program… the browser request handler and database update program 172 proceeds to block 440 to update one or more data tables in the database”) and at least one code placeholder in software code of the software program structure with second project information dependent upon the plurality of project inputs (here the webpage layout is considered as template/placeholder Paragraph [0026, 0038, 0040] “browser request handler and database (i.e., structure) update (i.e., replace) program 172… database update program 172 proceeds to block 440 to update one or more data tables in the database… updates one or more data tables in the database to reflect the changes in the web page… changes in contents, links, and layout of the web page, and the browser request handler and database update program 172”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the method of replacing at least one structure placeholder in the software program structure with first project information dependent upon the plurality of project inputs and at least one code placeholder in software code of the software program structure with second project information dependent upon the plurality of project inputs as taught by Santosuosso into the method of creating a database object using an existing database object as taught by Busch. The modification would be obvious because of one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to add/incorporate the features of replacing at least one structure placeholder in the software program structure with first project information dependent upon the plurality of project inputs and at least one code placeholder in software code of the software program structure with second project information dependent upon the plurality of project inputs to provide an efficient technique having all the input and updating the database so as to have the database accurate and up to date as suggested by Santosuosso (paragraph [0008]).
Per claim 2:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further, Busch does not explicitly discloses accessing a placeholder database that contains a list of the at least one structure placeholder and the at least one code placeholder in the software code of the software program structure.
However, Santosuosso discloses in an analogous computer system accessing a placeholder database that contains a list of the at least one structure placeholder and the at least one code placeholder in the software code of the software program structure (Paragraph [0027, 0040] “server system 120 may include a database server 170 for managing one or more databases 180… changes in contents, links, and layout of the web page, and the browser request handler and database update program 172 executes a trigger program 178 in response to the page change request” here the webpage layout is considered as template/placeholder”).
The feature of providing accessing a placeholder database that contains a list of the at least one structure placeholder and the at least one code placeholder in the software code of the software program structure would be obvious for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Per claim 3:
Busch discloses:
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
selecting the software program structure from a software program structure database (Paragraph [0020] “the application data 136A and 136B may reside in a separate database system although accessible by the server-based applications 134A and 134B and known by the application where the application data may be accessed”).
Per claim 4:
Busch discloses:
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
retrieving the software code from a software code database (Paragraph [0021] “server 130 also includes a server-based pick and place software application 150 which is accessed and used by the client systems 110A and 110B in carrying out the pick and place process”).
Per claim 5:
Busch discloses:
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
checking in the project that includes the software program structure and the software code into a client repository (here storing considered as checking in, see Paragraph [0022] “the server 130 includes a temporary application data storage area 142 in which application data are temporarily stored… object references 144A through 144D temporarily stored in the temporary storage area 142”).
Per claim 6:
Busch discloses:
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the software program structure is one of the following: an application programming interface, a web application, a system software structure, and a desktop application (Paragraph [0019] “server-based web applications 134A and 134B, in this example, are… business applications… web application 134A may be a customer relationship management (CRM) application… and the other web application 134B”).
Per claim 11:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further, Busch does not explicitly discloses adding additional software code specific to the project having the software program structure.
However, Santosuosso discloses in an analogous computer system adding additional software code specific to the project having the software program structure (Paragraph [0024] “client system may be utilized to update one or more server systems and each server system may receive update/change requests from one or more client systems”).
The feature of providing adding additional software code specific to the project having the software program structure would be obvious for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Per claim 12:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further, Busch does not explicitly disclose wherein the software code within the software program structure includes template code configured to be used in writing additional software code specific to the project.
However, Santosuosso discloses in an analogous computer system wherein the software code within the software program structure includes template code configured to be used in writing additional software code specific to the project (here the webpage layout is considered as template, see Paragraph [0040] “changes in contents, links, and layout of the web page, and the browser request handler and database update program 172 executes a trigger program 178 in response to the page change request”).
The feature of providing wherein the software code within the software program structure includes template code configured to be used in writing additional software code specific to the project would be obvious for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 13 and 16 is/are the apparatus/system claim corresponding to method claims 1 and 5 respectively, and rejected under the same rational set forth in connection with the rejection of claim 1 and 5 respectively, as noted above.
Per claim 14:
Busch discloses:
14. The system of claim 13, wherein the structure creation module further comprises:
a program structure database that includes at least one software program structure for the type of software program that is to be created (Paragraph [0026] “contact database objects stored in the application data 136A… a search routine may be used to generate a list view of database objects that meet certain search criteria”).
Per claim 15:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further, Busch does not explicitly disclose a software code database from which a type of software program structure is retrieved dependent upon the plurality of project inputs.
However, Santosuosso discloses in an analogous computer system a software code database from which a type of software program structure is retrieved dependent upon the plurality of project inputs (Paragraph [0024] “a plurality of client systems and server systems wherein each client system may be utilized to update one or more server systems and each server system may receive update/change requests from one or more client systems”).
The feature of providing a software code database from which a type of software program structure is retrieved dependent upon the plurality of project inputs would be obvious for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Per claim 18:
Busch discloses:
18. The system of claim 13, wherein the structure creation module further comprising:
memory for storing a program structure database, a software code database, and the placeholder database (Fig. 1 element 130 and related discussion).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10, 17 and 19 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 20 objected by virtue of its respective dependency on claim 19. Please note that the claims are rejected under 101 above and applicants must overcome the 101 rejections in order for these claims to be allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Related cited arts:
Brabrand, Claus, Anders Møller, and Michael I. Schwartzbach. "The project." ACM Transactions on Internet Technology (TOIT) 2.2 (2002): pp. 79-114.
Liu, Lung-Chun, and Ellis Horowitz. "A formal model for software project management." IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 15.10 (1989): pp.1280-1293.
Herraiz, Israel, et al. "The processes of joining in global distributed software projects." Proceedings of the 2006 international workshop on Global software development for the practitioner. 2006. pp. 27-33.
US 6876314 B1 discloses a self-generating automatic code generation system includes a user interface for capturing a set of knowledge and rules that define an application; a first automatic code generator for generating code for the application using the set of knowledge and rules; a user-interface for capturing a set of knowledge and rules that define a new feature to be added to the application; and a second automatic code generator supporting the new feature that was automatically generated by the first automatic code generator using the set of knowledge and rules defining the new feature as well as a set of knowledge and rules defining the first automatic code generator, wherein the second automatic code generator is to regenerate the code for the application such that the application includes the new feature using a set of knowledge and rules for generating the application as well as a set of knowledge and rules for using the new feature.
US 6633878 B1 discloses a system, method and article of manufacture are provided for initializing a database used with an issue tracker. The issue tracker receives information relating to a plurality of issues from a plurality of users, displays the information relating to the issues, and allows the browsing of the information relating to each of the issues. To initialize the database, the information relating to the issues is stored in a first database. A second database is also provided that stores tables including: a plurality of user interfaces; and/or application logic for accessing the information in the first database. The tables of the second database are reconfigured upon migrating the first database from a first folder to a second folder.
US 6502102 B1 discloses a system, method and article of manufacture are provided for affording a table-driven automated scripting architecture. First, test script information is divided into a plurality of components of one or more words having a commonly understood meaning. Then the components are stored into a database. Later, the components are parsed into one or more words (each having a commonly understood meaning). The database is queried for the words to retrieve a set of computer instructions that cause a computer to perform functions related to the commonly understood meaning of the words and then to perform those functions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Satish Rampuria whose telephone number is 571-272-3732. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chat Do, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3721. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
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.
/Satish Rampuria/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193
*****