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 claims filed 06/07/2024.
Claims 17-36 have been examined.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of prior-filed application PCT/EP2022/085196 under 35 U.S.C. 365(c) is acknowledged and granted.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 06/07/2024 has been received, considered as indicated, and placed on record in the file.
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the use of self-evident clauses. The first sentence of the Abstract reads "The invention relates to a method, to a computer program and to a computer device as described herein”. The abstract should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," and in this case “The invention relates to “ and “as described herein”. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Specification
The specification is objected to because the Cross-References to Related Applications and Brief Summary of the Invention: section is missing from the specification:
Content of Specification
(a) Title of the Invention: See 37 CFR 1.72(a) and MPEP § 606. The title of the invention should be placed at the top of the first page of the specification unless the title is provided in an application data sheet. The title of the invention should be brief but technically accurate and descriptive, preferably from two to seven words may not contain more than 500 characters.
(b) Cross-References to Related Applications: See 37 CFR 1.78 and MPEP § 201.11.
(c) Statement Regarding Federally Sponsored Research and Development: See MPEP § 310.
The Names Of The Parties To A Joint Research Agreement: See 37 CFR 1.71(g).
(e) Incorporation-By-Reference Of Material Submitted On a Compact Disc: The specification is required to include an incorporation-by-reference of electronic documents that are to become part of the permanent United States Patent and Trademark Office records in the file of a patent application. See 37 CFR 1.52(e) and MPEP § 608.05. Computer program listings (37 CFR 1.96(c)), “Sequence Listings” (37 CFR 1.821(c)), and tables having more than 50 pages of text were permitted as electronic documents on compact discs beginning on September 8, 2000.
(f) Background of the Invention: See MPEP § 608.01(c). The specification should set forth the Background of the Invention in two parts:
(1) Field of the Invention: A statement of the field of art to which the invention pertains. This statement may include a paraphrasing of the applicable U.S. patent classification definitions of the subject matter of the claimed invention. This item may also be titled "Technical Field."
(2) Description of the Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98: A description of the related art known to the applicant and including, if applicable, references to specific related art and problems involved in the prior art which are solved by the applicant's invention. This item may also be titled "Background Art."
(g) Brief Summary of the Invention: See MPEP § 608.01(d). A brief summary or general statement of the invention as set forth in 37 CFR 1.73. The summary is separate and distinct from the abstract and is directed toward the invention rather than the disclosure as a whole. The summary may point out the advantages of the invention or how it solves problems previously existent in the prior art (and preferably indicated in the Background of the Invention). In chemical cases it should point out in general terms the utility of the invention. If possible, the nature and gist of the invention or the inventive concept should be set forth. Objects of the invention should be treated briefly and only to the extent that they contribute to an understanding of the invention.
(h) Brief Description of the Several Views of the Drawing(s): See MPEP § 608.01(f). A reference to and brief description of the drawing(s) as set forth in 37 CFR 1.74.
(i) Detailed Description of the Invention: See MPEP § 608.01(g). A description of the preferred embodiment(s) of the invention as required in 37 CFR 1.71. The description should be as short and specific as is necessary to describe the invention adequately and accurately. Where elements or groups of elements, compounds, and processes, which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described and their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art, they should not be described in detail. However, where particularly complicated subject matter is involved or where the elements, compounds, or processes may not be commonly or widely known in the field, the specification should refer to another patent or readily available publication which adequately describes the subject matter.
(j) Claim or Claims: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(i)-(p).
(k) Abstract of the Disclosure: See MPEP § 608.01(f). A brief narrative of the disclosure as a whole in a single paragraph of 150 words or less commencing on a separate sheet following the claims. In an international application which has entered the national stage (37 CFR 1.491(b)), the applicant need not submit an abstract commencing on a separate sheet if an abstract was published with the international application under PCT Article 21. The abstract that appears on the cover page of the pamphlet published by the International Bureau (IB) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is the abstract that will be used by the USPTO. See MPEP § 1893.03(e).
(l) Sequence Listing, See 37 CFR 1.821-1.825 and MPEP §§ 2421-2431. The requirement for a sequence listing applies to all sequences disclosed in a given application, whether the sequences are claimed or not. See MPEP § 2421.02.
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 17-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of optimization of portfolios without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v.CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. _ (2014) as provided by the interim guidelines FR 12/16/2014 Vol. 79 No. 241.
Analysis
Step 1, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. In this case independent claim 17 and all claims which depend from it are directed toward a method and independent claim 35 and all claims which depend from it are directed toward a device. As such, claims 17 and 35 and all claims which depend therefrom fall within one of the four categories of invention deemed to be the appropriate subject matter. Independent claim 32 and all claims which depend from it are directed toward a computer program which does not fall within a statutory category (see additional 35 USC § 101 rejection below).
Step 2A Prong 1, Under Step 2 A, Prong 1 of the 2019 Revised § 101 Guidance, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception such as a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355) by identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites abstract idea(s); and then determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG.
Specifically, claim 17 comprises inter alia the functions or steps of “A computer-implemented method for solving an optimization problem, comprising: encoding the optimization problem into an Ising-Hamiltonian model, wherein a ground state of the Ising-Hamiltonian model is a solution to the optimization problem;providing a cost function;providing constraints for the cost function; applying digitized counterdiabatic driving to a Hamiltonian encoding the cost function; providing a parameterized circuit design with a minimum depth; and executing a time evolution until the ground state of the Ising-Hamiltonian model is computed”.
Claim 32 comprises inter alia the functions or steps of “A computer program having program code for performing a method comprising the steps of: encoding an optimization problem into an Ising-Hamiltonian model, wherein a ground state of the Ising-Hamiltonian model is a solution to the optimization problem;providing a cost function;providing constraints for the cost function; applying digitized counterdiabatic driving to a Hamiltonian encoding the cost function; providing a parameterized circuit design with a minimum depth; and executing a time evolution until the ground state of the Ising-Hamiltonian model is computed; wherein the computer program is executed on at least one of a computer, a processor, a quantum-processing unit and a programmable hardware component”.
Claim 35 comprises inter alia the functions or steps of “A computation device comprising: an interface for communicating with a quantum-processing unit comprising one or more processors, wherein the one or processors are configured: to encode an optimization problem into an Ising-Hamiltonian model, wherein a ground state of the Ising-Hamiltonian model is a solution to the optimization problem;to provide a cost function;to provide constraints for the cost function; to apply digitized counterdiabatic driving to a Hamiltonian encoding the cost function; to provide a parameterized circuit design with a minimum depth; and to execute a time evolution until the ground state of the Ising-Hamiltonian model is computed”.
Those claim limits in bold are identified as claim limitations which recite the abstract idea, while those that are un-bolded are identified as additional elements.
The cited limitations as drafted are systems and methods that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a method of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Further, none of the limitations recite technological implementations details for any of the steps but, instead, only recite broad functional language being performed by the generic use of at least one processor. Optimization of portfolios is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in commerce systems. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a fundamental economic principle or practice but for the general linking to a technological environment, then it falls within the organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2, Next, it is determined whether the claim is directed to the abstract concept itself or whether it is instead directed to some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to, this concept, i.e., integrated into a practical application. See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). The mere introduction of a computer or generic computer technology into the claims need not alter the analysis. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223—24. “[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225.
In the present case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by claiming an improvement to the functioning of the computer or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way.
In particular, the claims contain the following additional elements: a computer-implemented; a computer program having program code; a processor; a quantum-processing unit; a programmable hardware component; a computation device; an interface for communicating with a quantum-processing unit. However, the specification description of the additional elements a computer-implemented ([0135]); a computer program having program code ([0079-0080]); a processor ([0072-0073]); a quantum-processing unit ([0072-0073]); a programmable hardware component ([0072-0073]); a computation device ([0072-0073]); an interface for communicating with a quantum-processing unit ([0073]) are at a high level of generality using exemplary language or as part of a generic technological environment and are functions any general purpose computer performs such that it amount no more than mere instruction to apply the exception to a particular technological environment. Further, none of the limitations recite technological implementations details for any of the steps but, instead, only recite broad functional language being performed by the generic use of at least one processor. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaning limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed toward an abstract idea.
Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea(s). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the abstract idea(s) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exaction using a generic computer component. Mere instruction to apply an exertion using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. These generic computer components are claimed at a high level of generality to perform their basic functions which amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of field of use (Specification as cited above for additional elements) and further see insignificant extra-solution activity MPEP § 2106.05 I. A. iii, 2106.05(b), 2106.05(b) III, 2106.05(g). Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
As for dependent claims 18-31, 33-34, and 36 these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea using previously identified additional elements noted from the respective independent claims from which they depend. Therefore, the cited dependent claims are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claim 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed toward non-statutory subject matter. The claim recites a judicial exception (computer program) without the use of a physical medium. Therefore, the claim lacks the necessary physical articles or objects to constitute a machine or a manufacture within the meaning of 35 USC 101. Descriptive material (software) can be characterized as either "functional descriptive material" or "nonfunctional descriptive material." Both types of "descriptive material" are nonstatutory when claimed as descriptive material per se., 33 F.3d at 1360, 31 USPQ2d at 1759. When functional descriptive material is recorded on some computer-readable medium, it becomes structurally and functionally interrelated to the medium and will be statutory in most cases since use of technology permits the function of the descriptive material to be realized. Merely claiming nonfunctional descriptive material, i.e., abstract ideas, stored on a computer-readable medium, in a computer, or on an electromagnetic carrier signal, do not make it statutory. Note: When amending the claim to overcome this rejection the recited physical device which stores the software should recite the non-transitory embodiment of the application.
Prior Art
Claim 25 overcomes the prior art of record such that none of the cited prior art reference’s disclosures can be applied to form the basis of a 35 USC § 102 rejection nor can they be combined to fairly suggest in combination, the basis of a 35 USC § 103 rejection when the limitations are read in the particular environment of the claims. Therefore, the claims may be allowable if amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 17-24 and 26-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandarana (“Digitized~counterdiabatic quantum approximate optimization algorithm", July 7, 2021, pages 1-9) in view of Egger (“Quantum Computing for Finance: State of the Art and Future Prospects", January 28, 2021, pages 1-24).
As per claim 17, Chandarana teaches a computer-implemented method for solving an optimization problem ([page 4] “…Combinatorial optimization problems are another set of problems that can be encoded in the ground state of a quantum Hamiltonian, diagonal in the computational
Basis …’), comprising: encoding the optimization problem into an Ising-Hamiltonian model, wherein a ground state of the Ising-Hamiltonian model is a solution to the optimization problem ([page 2] “…the cost function F(-yJJ) is optimized classically to obtain an optimal parameter set…” [page 4] “…Combinatorial optimization problems are another set of problems that can be encoded in the ground state of a quantum Hamiltonian, diagonal in the computational Basis …”); providing a cost function ([page 2] “…the cost function F(-yJJ) is optimized classically to obtain an optimal parameter set…” [page 4] “…Combinatorial optimization problems are another set of problems that can be encoded in the ground state of a quantum Hamiltonian, diagonal in the computational Basis …”); applying digitized counterdiabatic driving to a Hamiltonian encoding the cost function ([page 2] “…the cost function F(-yJJ) is optimized classically to obtain an optimal parameter set…In general, CD driving amounts to using an additional control Hamiltonian in Eq. ( i ), required for suppressing nonadiabatic transitions [38---40, 6l]. This is especially effective for many--body systems with tightly spaced eigenstates. CD driving comes at a cost as it generally involves nonlocal many-body interactions, and their exact specification of the CD Hamiltonian term requires access to the spectral properties of the driven system…” [page 4] “…Combinatorial optimization problems are another set of problems that can be encoded in the ground state of a quantum Hamiltonian, diagonal in the computational Basis …”); providing a parameterized circuit design with a minimum depth ([page 1] “…These studies establish that for certain problems, the inclusion of additional driving terms can reduce the computational complexity, and with it the circuit depth… The CD driving decreases the circuit depth, while reducing the number of optimization parameters…’ [page 2] “…The addition of a new free parameter through an operator will increase the degrees of freedom, making it possible to reach broader parts of the Hilbert space of the Hamiltonian with a lower circuit depth than in QAOA”); and executing a time evolution until the ground state of the Ising-Hamiltonian model is computed ([page 2] “…The adiabatic circuit ansatz can be designed using the trotterized time evolution operator…An adiabatic evolution using U(O, T) can always produce an exact target state at the cost of resorting to a large value of p…” [page 4] “…Combinatorial optimization problems are another set of problems that can be encoded in the ground state of a quantum Hamiltonian, diagonal in the computational basis…”).
Chandarana does not teach the remaining claim limitations.
Egger teaches providing constraints for the cost function ([page 12] “…To map the problem (l 8) to a QUBO, the equality constraint 1 T x = B is mapped to a penalty term (1 T x - B)2 which is scaled by a parameter and subtracted from the objective function …’ [page 13-14] “…constraints…”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the financial models as found in Egger with the digitized~counterdiabatic quantum approximate optimization algorithm of Chandarana in order to offer a holistic, practical guide to quantum computing and its applicability to financial problems for financial institutions in Banking, Financial Markets and Insurance. The claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 18,
Chandarana does not teach the claim limits.
Egger teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 17, wherein the cost function encodes parameters of an optimization return ([page 11, equations (15) and (16)]), and parameters of risk data ([page 3, equation (1)]) and budget data ([page 12] “..budget…”) into a canonical quadratic unconstrained binary optimization form ([page 12, equation (18)]).
As per claim 19,
Chandarana does not teach the claim limits.
Egger teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 18, wherein at least one Lagrangian multiplier is used to adjust a weight of one or more coefficients scaling a relevance of a budget constraint with respect to at least one of risk and revenue ([page 11, equation (16)] “…One can also formulate a Lagrangian of the Markowitz model above and maximize c T w - qw T I;w, where the higher q 2: 0, the more risk-averse the portfolio will be”).
As per claim 20,
Chandarana does not teach the claim limits.
Egger teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 17, wherein the constraints for the cost function are encoded by at least one Lagrangian operator ([page 11, equation (16)] “…One can also formulate a Lagrangian of the Markowitz model above and maximize c T w - qw T I;w, where the higher q 2: 0, the more risk-averse the portfolio will be” [page 13] “…Different cost functions can also be considered…” [page 18] “…cost function…”).
As per claim 21,
Chandarana teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 17, wherein the digitized counterdiabatic driving comprises computation of a nested commutator ([page 2] “…In the following sections, a pool of operators is defined using a second-order expansion of the nested communicator ansatz [65], from which we chose based on the success probability of our algorithm…’).
As per claim 22,
Chandarana teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 17, wherein the optimization problem is an unconstrained single-period discreet mean-variance portfolio optimization problem .
As per claim 23,
Chandarana teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 17, wherein the minimum depth comprises a minimum number of stacked gates ([page 1] “…These studies establish that for certain problems, the inclusion of additional driving terms can reduce the computational complexity, and with it the circuit depth… The CD driving decreases the circuit depth, while reducing the number of optimization parameters…’ [page 2] “…The addition of a new free parameter through an operator will increase the degrees of freedom, making it possible to reach broader parts of the Hilbert space of the Hamiltonian with a lower circuit depth than in QAOA”).
As per claim 24,
Chandarana does not teach the claim limits.
Egger teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 17, further comprising transforming the optimization problem into a quadratic unconstrained optimization problem ([page 11] “…we will look at Quadratic Binary Unconstrained Optimization (QUBO),… large problem class tackled by such variational approaches is that of quadratic unconstrained binary optimization problems (QUBO):…” [page 18] “…cost function…”).
As per claim 26,
Chandarana teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 25, further comprising modulating the adiabatic process ([page 1, 2, and 5] “…adiabatic…”).
As per claim 27,
Chandarana teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 17, further comprising implementing a counterdiabatic driving term to compensate for excitations that occur due to the execution of the time evolution ([page 1] “we propose a novel algorithm, digitized-counterdiabatic quantum approximate optimization algorithm (DC-QAOA), which improves the performance of the conventional QAOA”).
As per claim 28,
Chandarana teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 27, wherein the counterdiabatic driving term is obtained by a nested commutator approach ([page 2] “…In the following sections, a pool of operators is defined using a second-order expansion of the nested communicator ansatz [65], from which we chose based on the success probability of our algorithm…”).
As per claim 29,
Chandarana teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 27, wherein the counterdiabatic driving term is an approximation comprising a digitized combination of a plurality of Pauli operators ([page 3] “…denotes the Pauli matrices…’ [page 4] “…This situation can be encoded in the ground state of the problem Hamiltonian by mapping the binary variables to Pauli operators…”).
As per claim 30,
Chandarana teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 17, further comprising determining at least one counterdiabatic driving term ([page 1] “…the inclusion of additional driving terms can reduce the computational complex-ity, and with it the circuit depth….we propose a novel algorithm, digitized-counterdiabatic quantum approximate optimization algorithm (DC-QAOA), which improves the performance of the conventional QAOA”).
As per claim 31,
Chandarana teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 17, further comprising utilizing at least one of a digitized-counterdiabatic quantum approximate optimization algorithm and a quantum approximate optimization algorithm to solve the optimization problem ([page 1] “…we propose a novel algorithm, digitized-counterdiabatic quantum approximate optimization algorithm (DC-QAOA), which improves the performance of the conventional QAOA”).
As per claim 32, Chandarana teaches a computer program having program code for performing a method wherein the computer program is executed on at least one of a computer, a processor, a quantum-processing unit and a programmable hardware component ([page 1] “…The challenges involved in realizing fault tolerant quantum computer has promoted the study of such hybrid algorithms which proved to be relevant to modern noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) devices…”).
The limits of this claim are rejected using the same prior art and rationale as previously addressed in Claim 17.
As per claim 33,
The limits of this claim are rejected using the same prior art and rationale as previously addressed in Claim 27.
As per claim 34,
The limits of this claim are rejected using the same prior art and rationale as previously addressed in Claim 29.
As per claim 35, Chandarana teaches a computation device comprising: an interface for communicating with a quantum-processing unit comprising one or more processors ([page 1] “…The challenges involved in realizing fault tolerant quantum computer has promoted the study of such hybrid algorithms which proved to be relevant to modern noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) devices…” [page 3] “…quantum Ising spin chains are the manifestation of the simplest many-body systems that are widely studied in existing quantum processors…”).
The limits of this claim are rejected using the same prior art and rationale as previously addressed in Claim 17.
As per claim 36,
The limits of this claim are rejected using the same prior art and rationale as previously addressed in Claim 27.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gregory A Pollock whose telephone number is (571) 270-1465. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 4 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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 571 270-1836. 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.
/Gregory A Pollock/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
10/30/2025