DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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.
Claims 1, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "each user behavior item" in line 5 and “each behavior item” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested that the claim be amended to add a new limitation “the user behavior guide comprising a plurality of user behavior items” after “a user terminal;”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “constructed in advance into a database” rendering this claim unclear. It is not clear what step in the method or specific time period the database is constructed in advance to. Please clarify when the database should be constructed in the method.
Claim 4 also recites the limitation “user behavior is recommended differently by time zone”. According to the specification paragraph [0035] the examiner is interpreting this to mean a specific time of day or period of time. Please clarify the intended definition of time zone and amend the claim accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-9 do not include additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception into a practical application of the exception or sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons provided below which are in line with the 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 241, p 74618, December 16, 2014), the July 2015 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 146, p. 45429, July 30, 2015), the May 2016 Subject Matter Eligibility Update (Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 88, p. 27381, May 6, 2016), and the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 4, page 50, January 7, 2019), and the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol. 89, No. 137 p. 58128, July 17, 2024).
Analysis for claims 1 and 5 for subject matter eligibility is as follows:
Step 1: Claims 1 and 5 are drawn to a method which are statutory categories.
Step 2A – Prong 1: Claims 1 and 5 are drawn to an abstract idea in the form of a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind and mathematical concepts.
In particular, claim 1 recites the following limitations:
[A1]: “generate a user behavior guide based on the user biorhythm parameters”
[B1]: “calculating a user sleep disorder correlation for each behavior item by analyzing the user behavior performance results and the user sleep information acquired during a predetermined period.”
In particular, claim 5 recites the following limitations:
[C1]: “generate light therapy prescription data based on the user biorhythm parameters”
[D1]: “updating the light therapy prescription data based on the actual light source usage record data and the user sleep record data”
These elements [A1] – [D1] of claims 1 and 5 are drawn to an abstract idea because they are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, can be done mentally by a human mind or a human using a pen and paper. A skilled artisan, such as a medical doctor or research assistant can readily acquire biorhythm and sleep information, create a guide of recommended behavior changes, keep track the habits completed, calculate a sleep score or update the recommended guides based on the user’s completed habits.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Claims 1 and 5 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
In particular, claim 1 recites the following additional limitations:
[A1]: “receiving user biorhythm parameters”
[B2]: “displaying the user behavior guide” on a screen of a user terminal”
[C2]: “acquiring user behavior performance results for each user behavior item included in the user behavior guide”
[D2]: “acquiring user sleep information”
In particular, claim 5 recites the following additional limitations:
[E2]: “receiving user biorhythm parameters”
[F2]: “outputting a notification for a recommended use time zone of a light source so that a user uses the light source during the recommended time zone of the light source according to light therapy prescription data”
[G2]: “acquiring actual light source usage record data of the user”
[H2]: “acquiring sleep record data of the user”
The elements [A2] –[H2] do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, each of the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Please see MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05 (f), Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Step 2B: Claims 1 and 5 do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
In particular, claim 1 recites the following:
[A1]: “receiving user biorhythm parameters”
[B2]: “displaying the user behavior guide” on a screen of a user terminal”
[C2]: “acquiring user behavior performance results for each user behavior item included in the user behavior guide”
[D2]: “acquiring user sleep information”
In particular, claim 5 recites the following additional limitations:
[E2]: “receiving user biorhythm parameters”
[F2]: “outputting a notification for a recommended use time zone of a light source so that a user uses the light source during the recommended time zone of the light source according to light therapy prescription data”
[G2]: “acquiring actual light source usage record data of the user”
[H2]: “acquiring sleep record data of the user”
The element [A2-H2] do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself because these elements are adding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the industry, recited at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions and/or a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than being stored on a computer readable medium both of which are well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known in the industry. Further, the receiving and acquiring steps are each recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to insignificant presolution activity, e.g., mere data gathering step necessary to perform the Abstract Idea. When recited at this high level of generality, there is no meaningful limitation, such as a particular or unconventional step that distinguishes it from well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and comparing activity engaged in by medical professionals prior to Applicant's invention. Please see MPEP 2106.05 (f), Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and MPEP 2106.05 (g) ee Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Additionally, the system described in the specification describes a processor that may belong to a “desktop computer”, “notebook computer”, “smart phone”, “tablet”, etc (paragraph [0036] of specification).
In view of the above, the additional elements individually do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taking individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any specific disease or state of mind. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process.
Dependent claims 2-4 and 6-9 are also rejected under 35 USC 101 as these claims only contain recitations that further limit the abstract idea (that is, the claims only recite limitations that further limit the mental process or mathematical algorithm) and/or append abstract ideas (that is, the claims only recite limitations that add further mental processes or mathematical algorithms) and/or add additional elements that are not practical application or significantly more. Although specific steps are claimed such as “the guide for each behavior item includes information that classifies a degree to which a corresponding user behavior is commended differently by time zone” these steps could be performed by someone skilled in the arts such as a doctor or research assistant who can mentally determine a guide of behavior changes. Further, the specific steps claimed as “wherein the guide for each user behavior item corresponding to a combination of the user biorhythm parameters is constructed in advance into a database” amounts to insignificant data gathering and outputting. This would be an insignificant extra-solution activity and is not a practical application or significantly more. Please see Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and MPEP 2106.05 (g).
In view of the above, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taking individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves inducing sleep states or other desired mental states. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lockley (US 2019/0366032) in view of Kahn (US 10335060).
Regarding claim 1, Lockley teaches a biorhythm improvement method, comprising:
receiving user biorhythm parameters; (paragraph [0070] “Types of personal information include, but are not limited to, age, medical conditions, personal habits, and any other information that may relate to a greater or lesser need for the user circadian shift protocol to be adjusted to that need.”)
generating a user behavior guide based on the user biorhythm parameters; (paragraph [0070] “determining the user circadian shift protocol responsive to the personal information of at least one of the user and the companion”)
displaying the user behavior guide on a screen of a user terminal; (paragraph [0076] “FIGS. 15-41, displays of an exemplary user interface 1500 showing the collection of information to generate a user circadian shift protocol and providing an indication of the protocol are presented.”)
acquiring user behavior performance results for each user behavior item included in the user behavior guide; (paragraph [0057] “limitations on when a user is unable to comply with certain recommended activities, exposures, and ingestions are contemplated and accounted for” paragraph [0041] “method may be performed by any computerized device as described above and operable to receive user input, including input performed using a mouse, a keyboard, a touchscreen, a sensor, and any other user input device as is known in the art. Steps of receiving information may be performed by one of a user input device and the network communication device.”)
acquiring user sleep information; (paragraph [0050] “a sleep pattern for the user may also be received, distinct from the indication of the user circadian phase. In such embodiments, the protocol may be defined responsive to the received sleep pattern.”)
but fails to teach calculating a user sleep disorder correlation for each behavior item by analyzing the user behavior performance results and the user sleep information acquired during a predetermined period.
Kahn teaches a biorhythm improvement method noting the relation of user activities to sleep disorders. (column 2, pg 22 “ the sleep monitoring may include detecting one or more of: insomnia, circadian rhythm sleep disorders, excessive sleepiness and restless legs syndrome.” column 6, pg 45 “Correlation logic 460 correlates the user's activity levels, sleep, and other observed behaviors to determine what behaviors result in a better result for the user. The correlation may be for quality of sleep or insomnia (e.g. correlate activity level, sport performance, activity and sport timing, and potentially other data with quality of sleep), performance level at a sport with overall activity level and/or sleep, etc.” The examiner notes that sleep disorders can be data associated with quality of sleep.) .”)
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lockley in view of Kahn. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that sleep disorders would influence the circadian rhythm or sleep schedule of a user and is important to analyze to make changes to those.
Regarding claim 2, Lockley teaches the biorhythm improvement method of claim 1, and further teaches
wherein the user biorhythm parameter includes a target wake-up time and a target bedtime, (paragraph [0019] “receiving a chronotype preference for the user” The examiner notes a chronotype preference would include a target wake-up time and a target bedtime.)
and the user biorhythm parameter further includes at least one of age, gender, sunset time and sunrise time-related information, chronotype, vision correction surgery history information, eye color, sleep improvement goal, and sleep disorder factor. (paragraph [0070] “Types of personal information include, but are not limited to, age, medical conditions, personal habits, and any other information that may relate to a greater or lesser need for the user circadian shift protocol”)
Regarding claim 3, Lockley teaches the improvement method of claim 2, and Lockley further teaches wherein the user behavior guide includes a guide for each user behavior item, the guide for each behavior item includes information that classifies a degree to which a corresponding user behavior is recommended differently by time zone. (paragraph [0047] “Defining the protocol may comprise scheduling one or more circadian-shifting activities to be performed at a certain date and time, with the totality of the activities defining the protocol” and paragraph [0005] “The activities may comprise at least one of a light exposure or light avoidance activity, a chronobiotic activity, a nutritional consumption activity, a physical activity, and a rest activity.”)
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lockley in view of Lee further in view of Choi (US 2020/0345969).
Regarding claim 4, Lockley teaches the improvement method of claim 3, and but fails to teach wherein the guide for each user behavior item corresponding to a combination of the user biorhythm parameters is constructed in advance into a database.
Choi teaches using a database for storing the guide and user biorhythm parameters. (paragraph [0519] “The IoT hub 100 may include a database including information indicated in Table 12. The database may store light therapy conditions matched to sleep patterns defined as sleep disorders.”)
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system taught by Lockley and Kahn in view of Choi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that the recommended guide and protocol would need be stored online for a user to reference later and implement into their lifestyle.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lockley in view of Luo (US 2020/0289321).
Regarding claim 5, Lockley teaches a sleep disorder improvement method, comprising:
receiving user biorhythm parameters; (paragraph [0070] “Types of personal information include, but are not limited to, age, medical conditions, personal habits, and any other information that may relate to a greater or lesser need for the user circadian shift protocol to be adjusted to that need.”)
generating a light therapy prescription data based on the user biorhythm parameters; (paragraph [0070] “determining the user circadian shift protocol responsive to the personal information of at least one of the user and the companion” paragraph [0005] “the user circadian shift protocol comprising one or more activities scheduled to be performed at a certain date and time. The activities may comprise at least one of a light exposure or light avoidance activity,”)
outputting a notification message for a recommended use time zone of a light source so that a user uses the light source during the recommended use time zone of the light source according to light therapy prescription data; (paragraph [0083] “Reminders and notifications could also be presented on the screens for what to do and when based on the circadian shift protocol, taking the form of causing the display of information on a display.”)
acquiring user sleep record data; (paragraph [0050] “a sleep pattern for the user may also be received, distinct from the indication of the user circadian phase. In such embodiments, the protocol may be defined responsive to the received sleep pattern.”)
updating the light therapy prescription data (paragraph [0041] “Steps of determining, identifying, selecting, creating, adjusting a circadian shift protocol, altering a circadian shift protocol, and modifying a circadian shift protocol is performed by the processor”
But fails to teach acquiring actual light source usage record data of the user; and updating the light therapy prescription data based on the actual light source usage record data and the user sleep record data.
Luo teaches a method for adjusting circadian rhythm that updates the circadian rhythm shift program based on sleep data and light exposure. (Paragraph [0063] “Physiological parameters can be captured by sensors in the system to detect where the body is in the sleep cycle and/or the circadian rhythm cycle, and used as input for the circadian rhythm adjustment algorithms….One or several of these sensors and parameters may be used independently or in combination, to detect different states and stages of sleep, which serves as an input for light program adjustments….Optionally, information about daytime activity and light exposure may also be tracked via actigraphy.” Paragraph [0125] “on which an algorithm for determining a circadian rhythm therapy and/or controlling sleep therapy system may reside.” The examiner notes that daytime activity and light exposure make up light source usage of the user and that the adjustment program would update the circadian rhythm therapy based on sleep and light exposure data.)
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lockley’s update in view of Luo basing the update on sleep and light exposure data. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that circadian rhythm disorders typically are related to sudden and/or extreme changes in the relationship between an organism's exposure to environmental light and the organism's activity. See paragraph [0011].
Regarding claim 6, Lockley teaches the biorhythm improvement method of claim 1, and further teaches
wherein the user biorhythm parameter includes a target wake-up time and a target bedtime, (paragraph [0019] “receiving a chronotype preference for the user” The examiner notes a chronotype preference would include a target wake-up time and a target bedtime.)
and the user biorhythm parameter further includes at least one of age, gender, sunset time and sunrise time-related information, chronotype, vision correction surgery history information, eye color, sleep improvement goal, and sleep disorder factor. (paragraph [0070] “Types of personal information include, but are not limited to, age, medical conditions, personal habits, and any other information that may relate to a greater or lesser need for the user circadian shift protocol”)
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lockley in view of Luo further in view of Ueno (US 2020/0107420).
Regarding claim 7, Lockley teaches the sleep disorder improvement method of claim 6, and further teaches wherein the light therapy prescription data includes the recommended use time zone of the light source, and a recommended amount of time to use the light source. (paragraph [0057] “the method may comprise creating a circadian shift protocol that has the user sleep from 2 a.m. to 9 a.m. (or some other time period as may be likely to be complied with by the user) and then avoid sunlight from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m.” paragraph [0047] “Light exposure/avoidance activities may include, but are not limited to, seeking out exposure to light, seeking out exposure to daylight, seeking out exposure to light comprising light within a blue range of the physical spectrum (i.e. light within a wavelength range from 450 nanometers (nm) to 485 nm), avoiding light, avoiding daylight, and avoiding light comprising light within the blue range, including any timing, duration, pattern, and intensity.”)
However, Lockley fails to teach a melanopic recommended illuminance.
Ueno teaches an illuminance control method based on melanopic recommended illuminance. (paragraph [0033] “Note that, in general, the effective amount of melatonin increases as an illuminance increases, and the effective amount of melatonin increases as a color temperature (for example, a correlated color temperature) increases. The effective amount of melatonin can be calculated, based on the amount of light which illumination apparatus 20 emits and the emission spectrum of the light, using the model established by Enezi and others (see Enezi, J. al, Revell, V., Brown, T., Wynne, J., Schlangen, L., & Lucas, R. (2011). A “Melanopic” spectral efficiency function predicts the sensitivity of melanopsin photoreceptors to polychromatic lights. Journal of Biological Rhythms, 26, 4, 314-323).” Paragraph [0032] “ illumination system 100 only allows the schedule setting that is capable of increasing an effective amount of melatonin to be set for the morning mode “ Paragraph [0064] “it is necessary to reduce the effective amount of melatonin during a second time frame from 17:00 to 20:00 which corresponds to the evening mode. That is to say, predetermined space 50 needs to be illuminated by comparatively dim light during the evening mode.”)
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lockley and Luo in view of Ueno. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that exposure to bright light during a time frame before bedtime has adverse effects on the ability to fall asleep and on the quality of the sleep and lack of exposure to daylight in the morning can disrupt the user’s ability to fall asleep. See paragraph [0031] and [0069] of Ueno.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lockley in view of Luo further in view of Ueno and further in view of Choi.
Regarding claim 8, Lockley, Luo, and Ueno teaches the improvement method of claim 7, but fails to teach wherein the guide for each user behavior item corresponding to a combination of the user biorhythm parameters is constructed in advance into a database.
Choi teaches using a database for storing the guide and user biorhythm parameters. (paragraph [0519] “The IoT hub 100 may include a database including information indicated in Table 12. The database may store light therapy conditions matched to sleep patterns defined as sleep disorders.”)
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system taught by Lockley in view of Luo further in view of Ueno in view of the database taught in Choi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that the recommended guide and protocol would need be stored online for a user to reference later and implement into their lifestyle.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lockley in view of Luo further in view of Ueno further in view of Choi further in view of Shouldice (US 2016/0151603).
Regarding claim 9, Lockley, Luo, Ueno, and Choi teach the method of claim 8, and Luofurther teaches wherein the light therapy prescription data is updated (paragraph [0153] “The sleep shift (e.g., shift sleep link 1304) option may shift the sleep schedule of a user earlier or later without traveling. The night shift option (e.g., schedule night shift link 1306) may suggest a user's sleep schedule and a circadian adjusting program based on night shifts...”) but fails to teach based on a sleep score corresponding to sleep quality calculated for each day during a predetermined period and the actual light source usage record data for each day.
However, Lockley, Luo, Ueno, and Choi fail to teach a sleep score corresponding to sleep quality
Shouldice teaches a sleep management system that calculates a sleep score corresponding to quality. (paragraph [0127] “The processor may be configured to receive a measured sleep data associated with user movement data during a sleep session” paragraph [0111] “The processor may be further configured to display a temporal correlation for a plurality of sleep sessions between one or more determined sleep factors and one or more of the input user parameters.” paragraph [0367] “Processing may be performed by the system herein in order to provide feedback to a user concerning the quality of their sleep. This may be provided as a sleep score” The examiner notes the sleep session is a day during a predetermined time period.)
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system taught by Lockley, Luo, Ueno, and Choi to update the protocol based on a sleep score as taught by Shouldice. One of ordinary skill would have been able to recognize that the method may further comprise receiving a sleep pattern for the user, wherein the user circadian shift protocol is defined responsive to the sleep pattern. See paragraph [0050] of Lockley.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Youngblood (US 2021/0386964) teaches a smart platform to promote sleep.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIANA JOY LACAY DECASTRO whose telephone number is (571)272-8316. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:30.
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, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at 571-272-5596. 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.
/A.L.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JACQUELINE CHENG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights