DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the Application filed on 04/30/2024 said application claims a priority date of 05/01/2023.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the case.
Claims 1, 14 and 19 are independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 is 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 12:
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the input" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 11-15, 17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freedy et al. (US 7,321,883 B1, issued 01/22/2008, hereinafter “Freedy”) in view of Brenner (US 2011/0055065 A1, published 03/03/2011, hereinafter “Brenner”).
Independent Claim 1:
Freedy discloses a system comprising:
a non-transitory memory with executable instruction (Freedy: column 5 lines 40-43 and column 30 lines 52-56.); and
a controller configured to implement the instructions to (Freedy: column 5 lines 40-43 and column 30 lines 52-56.):
receive data from pre-defined sources (Data is received from collaboration end units and from stored models in database 150, Freedy: abstract, column 9 lines 34-38.),
implement an algorithm to predict outcomes associated with options, or subsets of the options, at different times (a predictive algorithm is used to generate the probabilities associated with the options in the decision tree, which includes time based decisions, Freedy: Fig. 13, column 14 lines 37-43, column 26 lines 58-67 and column 27 lines 1-45.), and
generate a decision tree based on the received data that is associated with options, the decision tree including branches associated with, respectively, subsets of the options (Freedy: Figs. 12 and 13, column 26 lines 58-67 and column 27 lines 1-7.),
wherein the controller, when generating the decision tree:
determines respective scores for at least one of the options or subgroups of options at the different times based on the predicted outcomes (Freedy: Figs. 12 and 13, column 27 lines 8-45), and
renders a subset of the branches of the decision tree having scores that satisfy a condition to a user (The system determines the best course of action and displays the best branch option in a highlighted form (specific type of rendering), Freedy: Fig. 13, column 27 lines 28-45.).
Freedy does not appear to expressly teach a system wherein the condition comprises a threshold value.
However, Brenner teaches a system wherein the condition comprises a threshold value (Brenner: claim 1, abstract, ¶ [0125]-[0130]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Freedy wherein the condition comprises a threshold value, as taught by Brenner.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user’s experience by better ensuring that the best actions meet a minimum viability check and alerting the user when no options meet this viability check (Brenner: claim 1, abstract, ¶ [0125]-[0130]).
Claim 2:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Freedy in view of Brenner further teaches a system wherein the controller, when rendering the decision tree, represents the decision tree to vary the scores along a first direction and to vary the times along a second direction (The scores are displayed as varying going from left to right on the decision tree and the different time options vary vertically, Freedy: Figs. 12 and 13, column 26 lines 58-67 and column 27 lines 1-45.).
Claim 4:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Freedy in view of Brenner further teaches a system further comprising:
an input device configured to receive an input from the user (Freedy: Figs. 10 and 11, column 26 lines 4-33.),
wherein the controller adjusts scores for the options and/or branches based on the input from the user (Freedy: column 3 lines 65-67, column 4 lines 1-8 and column 27 lines 7-27).
Claim 5:
The rejection of claim 4 is incorporated. Freedy in view of Brenner further teaches a system wherein the input identifies criteria to determine the scores based on predictive outcomes and uncertainties associated with the options (The input is a criteria (yest/no probability estimate) used to determine the score and is tied to both a predictive outcome (safe extraction occurring or not) and uncertainty (the probability value) associated with each option, Freedy: column 25 lines 62-67, column 26 lines 1-18 and column 27 lines 7-27.).
Claim 6:
The rejection of claim 4 is incorporated. Freedy in view of Brenner further teaches a system wherein the input includes a selection of one of the branches of the decision tree, and the controller further presents information associated with the subset of the options for the selected one of the branches (The user can user can select a slider associated with one of the branches and cause a complementary probability to automatically be calculated and entered (information associated with the subset of the options), Freedy: column 25 lines 62-67, column 26 lines 1-18 and column 27 lines 7-27.).
Claim 11:
The rejection of claim 4 is incorporated. Freedy in view of Brenner further teaches a system wherein the controller determines the threshold value based on the input (The changed probabilities would cause a change to the score for each option, Freedy: Fig. 10, column 25 lines 62-67, column 26 lines 1-3 and 58-67 and column 27 lines 1-27. After the scores are computed the scores are compared to a minimum threshold, Brenner: Figs. 2 and 12, ¶ [0082], [0125]. It is implied that the system needs to determine (e.g. lookup, retrieve) what thew threshold is set to in order to use it to compare against the computed scores.).
Claim 12:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Freedy in view of Brenner further teaches a system further comprising:
an interface to exchange information with a computing device to implement at least one of an artificial-intelligence algorithm or an artificial-intelligence machine learning algorithm (The system is a client-server system with a client application in a workstation connected to one or more servers, Freedy: column 5 lines 64-67 and column 6 lines 1-4, column 8 lines 46-67 and column 9 lines 1-38. The servers implement Artificial intelligence utilities, Freedy: column 3 lines 34-39, column 13 lines 52-67 and column 14 lines 1-6.),
wherein the controller receives predictive seed data from the computing device (The adaptive probability aid agent (computing device) uses machine learning to assist in assigning default probabilities (predictive seed data) to a decision tree being constructed using the decision tree probability elicitation module 408 (controller), Freedy: Fig. 4, column 14 lines 37-43.),
identifies parameters to be used by the computing device to predict outcomes associated with the different branches, and adjusts the parameters (The gui on the workstation displays (visually identifies) the different adjustable probabilities associated with the different options (parameters), Freedy: Fig. 10, column 26 lines 4-17. The server (computing device) uses the probabilities to construct a best course of action (predict outcomes), Freedy: column 4 lines 18-21 and 46-67.).
Claim 13:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Freedy in view of Brenner further teaches a system further comprising:
an input device configured to receive an input from the user (Freedy: Figs. 10 and 11, column 26 lines 4-33.),
wherein the controller determines possible outcomes for the options based on the input, and the algorithm determines a most likely one of the possible outcomes for each of the branches of the decision tree (The user can provide input to adjust the probabilities associated with the different options (parameters) which are used to determine whether the no or yes option for each branch is most likely, Freedy: Fig. 10, column 26 lines 4-17.).
Independent Claim 14:
Freedy discloses a method comprising:
generating a decision tree associated with options, the decision tree including branches associated with, respectively, subsets [or combinations] of the options (Freedy: Figs. 12 and 13, column 26 lines 58-67 and column 27 lines 1-7.),
implementing an algorithm to predict outcomes associated with options at different times (a predictive algorithm is used to generate the probabilities associated with the options in the decision tree, which includes time based decisions, Freedy: Fig. 13, column 14 lines 37-43, column 26 lines 58-67 and column 27 lines 1-45.), and
determining respective scores for the options or subgroups of options at the different times based on the predicted outcomes (Freedy: Figs. 12 and 13, column 27 lines 8-45), and
rendering a subset of the branches of the decision tree having ones of the scores that satisfy a condition (The system determines the best course of action and displays the best branch option in a highlighted form (specific type of rendering), Freedy: Fig. 13, column 27 lines 28-45.).
Freedy does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein the condition comprises a threshold value.
However, Brenner teaches a method wherein the condition comprises a threshold value (Brenner: claim 1, abstract, ¶ [0125]-[0130]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Freedy wherein the condition comprises a threshold value, as taught by Brenner.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user’s experience by better ensuring that the best actions meet a minimum viability check and alerting the user when no options meet this viability check (Brenner: claim 1, abstract, ¶ [0125]-[0130]).
Claim 15:
The rejection of claim 14 is incorporated. Freedy in view of Brenner further teaches a method wherein rendering the subset of the branches of the decision tree includes presenting the subset of the branches of the decision tree to vary the scores along a first direction and to vary the times along a second direction (The scores are displayed as varying going from left to right on the decision tree and the different time options vary vertically, Freedy: Figs. 12 and 13, column 26 lines 58-67 and column 27 lines 1-45.).
Claim 17:
The rejection of claim 14 is incorporated. Freedy in view of Brenner further teaches a system wherein the input identifies scores based on predictive outcomes and uncertainties associated with the options (The input is a criteria (yest/no probability estimate) used to determine the score and is tied to both a predictive outcome (safe extraction occurring or not) and uncertainty (the probability value) associated with each option, Freedy: column 25 lines 62-67, column 26 lines 1-18 and column 27 lines 7-27.).
Independent Claim 19:
Freedy discloses an apparatus comprising:
a display (Freedy: Figs. 1 and 4, abstract.); and
a computing device to (Freedy: Figs. 1 and 4, column 8 lines 46-63.):
generate a decision tree associated with options, the decision tree including branches associated with, respectively, subsets [or combinations] of the options (Freedy: Figs. 12 and 13, column 26 lines 58-67 and column 27 lines 1-7.),
predict outcomes associated with options at different times (a predictive algorithm is used to generate the probabilities associated with the options in the decision tree, which includes time based decisions, Freedy: Fig. 13, column 14 lines 37-43, column 26 lines 58-67 and column 27 lines 1-45.), and
determine respective scores for the options or subgroups of options at the different times based on the predicted outcomes (Freedy: Figs. 12 and 13, column 27 lines 8-45), and
control the display to render a subset of the branches of the decision tree having ones of the scores that satisfy a condition (The system determines the best course of action and displays the best branch option in a highlighted form (specific type of rendering), Freedy: Fig. 13, column 27 lines 28-45.).
Freedy does not appear to expressly teach an apparatus and method wherein the condition comprises a threshold value.
However, Brenner teaches an apparatus and method wherein the condition comprises a threshold value (Brenner: claim 1, abstract, ¶ [0125]-[0130]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the apparatus and method of Freedy wherein the condition comprises a threshold value, as taught by Brenner.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user’s experience by better ensuring that the best actions meet a minimum viability check and alerting the user when no options meet this viability check (Brenner: claim 1, abstract, ¶ [0125]-[0130]).
Claim 20:
The rejection of claim 19 is incorporated. Freedy in view of Brenner further teaches an apparatus further comprising:
an input device configured to receive an input from the user (Freedy: Figs. 10 and 11, column 26 lines 4-33.),
wherein the computing device determines possible outcomes for the options based on the input, and the display renders possible outcomes for each of the branches of the decision tree based on the input (The user can provide input to adjust the probabilities associated with the different options (parameters) which are used to determine whether the no or yes option for each branch is most likely, Freedy: Fig. 10, column 26 lines 4-17.).
Claim(s) 3, 10 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freedy in view of Brenner and further in view of Kohavi et al. (US 6,278,464 B1, issued 08/21/2001, hereinafter “Kohavi”).
Claim 3:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Freedy in view of Brenner does not appear to expressly teach a system wherein the controller renders the decision tree on a three-dimensional display device, and the controller, when rendering the decision tree, is further to visually separate the branches of the decision tree.
However, Kohavi teaches a system wherein the controller renders the decision tree on a three-dimensional display device, and the controller, when rendering the decision tree, is further to visually separate the branches of the decision tree (Kohavi: Figs. 7 and 9, abstract, column 6 lines 17-21, column 8 lines 66-67 and column 8 lines 1-3.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Freedy in view of Brenner wherein the controller renders the decision tree on a three-dimensional display device, and the controller, when rendering the decision tree, is further to visually separate the branches of the decision tree, as taught by Kohavi.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user’s experience by providing a more visually appealing and engaging representation of the decision tree and to apply a known 3d visualization technique to a known decision-tree output to yield the predictable result of an improved visual presentation.
Claim 10:
The rejection of claim 4 is incorporated. Freedy in view of Brenner does not appear to expressly teach a system wherein the display is a three-dimensional display device, and the input device includes a sensor to detect a motion by the user to rotate the decision tree.
However, Kohavi teaches a system wherein the display is a three-dimensional display device, and the input device includes a sensor to detect a motion by the user to rotate the decision tree (The decision tree can be displayed on a three dimensional display device, Kohavi: Figs. 7 and 9, abstract, column 6 lines 17-21, column 8 lines 66-67 and column 8 lines 1-3. The user can use the vertical thumb wheel 931 to tilt the direction the camera faces wherein the tilt varies between a range from straight ahead to straight down (rotation of the decision tree), Kohavi: Fig. 9, column 9 lines 40-51. The input device can be a touch screen, mouse or joystick, Kohavi: column 8 lines 14-20. Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well-known routine and conventional to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for these input devices to comprise sensors for detecting a motion by the user (e.g. finger dragging on a touch screen, hand moving a mouse in different directions and sensing when a mouse button is clicked by the motion of a user’s finger and a sensor for detecting the different directions a joystick is being moved to by the user’s corresponding hand motion). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the typical sensors of these input devices to detect motion from the user. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide an effective means for detecting the user’s input via the mouse, touchscreen or joystick.).
Claim 16:
The rejection of claim 14 is incorporated. Freedy in view of Brenner does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein rendering the subset of the branches of the decision tree includes presenting the subset of the branches of the decision in three-dimensions to visually separate the subset of the branches of the decision tree.
However, Kohavi teaches a method wherein rendering the subset of the branches of the decision tree includes presenting the subset of the branches of the decision in three-dimensions to visually separate the subset of the branches of the decision tree (Kohavi: Figs. 7 and 9, abstract, column 6 lines 17-21, column 8 lines 66-67 and column 8 lines 1-3.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Freedy in view of Brenner wherein rendering the subset of the branches of the decision tree includes presenting the subset of the branches of the decision in three-dimensions to visually separate the subset of the branches of the decision tree, as taught by Kohavi.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user’s experience by providing a more visually appealing and engaging representation of the decision tree and to apply a known 3d visualization technique to a known decision-tree output to yield the predictable result of an improved visual presentation.
Claim(s) 7, 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freedy in view of Brenner and further in view of Dimitruk et al. (US 2002/0133384 A1, published 09/19/2002, hereinafter “Dimitruk”).
Claim 7:
The rejection of claim 4 is incorporated. Freedy in view of Brenner further teaches a system wherein the input includes a selection of one of the branches of the decision tree (The user can change a current probability associated with a particular branch (selection of a branch) to an updated probability that will result in a different score for the corresponding option, Freedy: column 25 lines 62-67, column 26 lines 1-18 and column 27 lines 7-27. A best course of action is determined based on the scores generated by the probabilities associated with a branch, Freedy: Fig. 13, column 4 lines 18-21 and column 27 lines 28-45.).
Freedy in view of Brenner does not appear to expressly teach a system wherein the controller generates a suggestion to improve the score for the selected one of the branches.
However, Dimitruk teaches a system wherein the controller generates a suggestion to achieve a desired recommendation (The user can enter a desired recommendation and then the system provides a suggestion on the type of input required to achieve the desired recommendation, Dimitruk: abstract, claim 25).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Freedy in view of Brenner the controller generates a suggestion to achieve a desired recommendation, as taught by Dimitruk.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user’s experience by better assisting the user in adjusting the decision algorithm to a desired recommendation (Dimitruk: abstract, claim 25).
In implementing the suggestion feature of Dimitruk into the invention of Freedy in view of Brenner, achieving the desired recommendation (as taught by Dimitruk) would correspond to improving the score for the selected on of the branches since the best course of action (recommendation) correspond to a particular branch and is achieved based on the branch having the highest score (improved score) in the invention of Freedy in view of Brenner. Accordingly, in combination, Freedy in view of Brenner and further in view of Dimitruk teaches a system wherein the controller generates a suggestion to improve the score for the selected one of the branches.
Claim 8:
The rejection of claim 7 is incorporated. Freedy in view of Brenner and further in view of Dimitruk further teaches a system wherein the controller, when generating the suggestion to improve the score, is further to:
identify possible modifications to data used by the algorithm when determining the score for the selected one of the branches (Dimitruk: claim 26; Freedy: column 4 lines 18-21, column 25 lines 62-67, column 26 lines 1-18 and column 27 lines 28-45),
determine one of the possible modifications to the data that would improve the score for the selected one of the branches and identify, as the suggestion, a change in the selected one of the branches corresponding to one of the possible modifications (The system can identify multiple possible change inputs but ultimately determines and displays a specific one, Dimitruk: claims 25-26. The change to the probabilities of a branch will affect the score generated for said branch and ultimately which branch will end up as part of the best course of action, Freedy: column 4 lines 18-21, column 25 lines 62-67, column 26 lines 1-18 and column 27 lines 28-45).
Claim 18:
The rejection of claim 14 is incorporated. Freedy in view of Brenner further teaches a method further comprising receiving an input selecting one of the branches of the decision tree (The user can change a current probability associated with a particular branch (selection of a branch) to an updated probability that will result in a different score for the corresponding option, Freedy: column 25 lines 62-67, column 26 lines 1-18 and column 27 lines 7-27. A best course of action is determined based on the scores generated by the probabilities associated with a branch, Freedy: Fig. 13, column 4 lines 18-21 and column 27 lines 28-45.).
Freedy in view of Brenner does not appear to expressly teach a method comprising generating a suggestion to improve the score for the selected one of the branches.
However, Dimitruk teaches a method comprising generating a suggestion to achieve a desired recommendation (The user can enter a desired recommendation and then the system provides a suggestion on the type of input required to achieve the desired recommendation, Dimitruk: abstract, claim 25).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Freedy in view of Brenner to comprise generating a suggestion to achieve a desired recommendation, as taught by Dimitruk.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user’s experience by better assisting the user in adjusting the decision algorithm to a desired recommendation (Dimitruk: abstract, claim 25).
In implementing the suggestion feature of Dimitruk into the invention of Freedy in view of Brenner, achieving the desired recommendation (as taught by Dimitruk) would correspond to improving the score for the selected on of the branches since the best course of action (recommendation) correspond to a particular branch and is achieved based on the branch having the highest score (improved score) in the invention of Freedy in view of Brenner. Accordingly, in combination, Freedy in view of Brenner and further in view of Dimitruk teaches a method comprising generating a suggestion to improve the score for the selected one of the branches.
Claim(s) N is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freedy in view of Brenner and further in view of Iwata (US 2010/0231505 A1, published 09/16/2010, hereinafter “Iwata”).
Claim 9:
The rejection of claim 4 is incorporated. Freedy in view of Brenner further teaches a system wherein the input device includes a means for clicking and dragging to select one of the branches of the decision tree (Freedy: column 25 lines 62-67 and column 26 lines 1-18.).
Freedy in view of Brenner does not appear to expressly teach a system wherein the means comprises a sensor to detect a motion by the user.
However, Iwata teaches a system wherein the means comprises a sensor to detect a motion by the user (Iwata: abstract, claim 2, ¶ [0019]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Freedy in view of Brenner wherein the means comprises a sensor to detect a motion by the user, as taught by Iwata.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user’s experience by providing an input device that has less positional restrictions (Iwata: ¶ [0011]).
Conclusion
Examiner has cited particular columns and line and/or paragraph numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety 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.
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicants’ disclosure.
ENS et al., US 2024/0256903 A1 (Machine learning is used to generate a decision tree, ¶ [0033]).
Freese et al., US 9,443,002 B1 (The system implements an algorithm to predict outcomes and generate a decision tree for display, abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3633. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 5:30 am - 2:30 pm.
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, Stephen Hong can be reached at (571) 272-4124. 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.
/DANIEL RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178
