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 .
Priority
This application claims priority to Provisional Application 63/506,252 filed 5 June 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9 October 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the selector data" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the event data" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "a respective event link" in line 3. It appears that the limitation should recite page link instead of event link similar to what is recited in claim 10. Claim 14 is dependent on claim 13 and claim 13 fails to discuss events.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US PGPub 2006/0229899 to Hyder et al (hereafter Hyder).
Referring to claim 9, Hyder discloses a computer-implemented method for acquiring structured data hosted on a server, the method comprising:
receiving a first link to a main page [the site], the main page comprising one or more page links (see [0079] – the scraping engine farm has several scraping engines that typically use different scraping technologies for searching over a global electronic network such as the Internet, with each engine being optimized for either a particular type of scraping task or particular type or set of corporate sites.);
for each page link, following the page link to a linked page (see [0079] – Kelkoo scraping engine is optimized to follow internal links within the site specific internal locations to extract job information data sets.);
for each linked page, selecting one or more of the structured data [job information data set] hosted on the linked page by selecting an element on the linked page (see [0079]; [0093]-[0094] – The Kelkoo scraping engine is optimized to follow internal links within the site to specific internal locations to extract job information data sets.);
for each selected structured datum [listing], storing corresponding path data [URL] (see [0070]; [0080]; and [0117] – The data is stored in the staging database.);
classifying a type for each structured datum (see [0072] – The categorization engine task manager controls and manages the operations necessary to automatically categorize the subject listing data sets according to predetermined categories.);
indicating that the element has been correctly selected (see [0073] – The Rule Based Quality Engine task manager module provides a sequence of rules to which each listing data set is scrutinized by to ensure that the data set meets certain criteria and contains certain minimum levels of detailed information. The quality engine task manager schedules two basic thread sequences: a URL check thread followed by a data validation thread.); and
storing the structured data (see [0016] - Stored in a database and a search bank. ).
Referring to claim 12, Hyder discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 9, wherein the structured data of the one or more linked pages includes HTML data stored in a plurality of formats or organizational structured, and wherein storing the structured data includes storing the structured HTML data according to a uniform database format (Hyder: see [0067]; [0094] - The Data Source Adapter task module 136 takes data from different data sources, stored in the local databases as data sets are received from various inputs into the system 100 and converts the data sets of different types into normalized data sets all of one, normalized type. For example, data sets may be fed into the system 100 as text file, XML, HTML, or RSS data feeds. These different types of data sets must be normalized before further processing. The Data Source Adapter task module 136 ensures that all data sets are of a common normalized type.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPub 2006/0229899 to Hyder et al (hereafter Hyder) in view of US PGPub 2016/0188717 to Rosenberg et al (hereafter Rosenberg).
Referring to claim 1, Hyder discloses a computer system for acquiring structured data hosted on a server, the system comprising:
an acquisition module [scraping manager module] for acquiring the structured data from one or more linked pages each linked to from a main page by a page link by following each page link (see [0066]; [0079] – The scraping engine farm has several scraping engines that typically use different scraping technologies for searching over a global electronic network such as the Internet, with each engine being optimized for either a particular type of scraping task or particular type or set of corporate sites. Kelkoo scraping engine is optimized to follow internal links within the site specific internal locations to extract job information data sets.), the acquisition module comprising:
a selection module for selecting one or more structured data hosted on the linked page by selecting an element on the linked page and storing path data [URL] corresponding to the selected element (see [0045]; [0070]; [0079]; [0080]; [0117] – The Kelko scraping engine is optimized to follow internal links within the site to specific internal locations to extract job information data sets.);
a mapping module [categorization engine task manager] for classifying a type for each structured datum [listing data set] (see [0045]; [0072] – The categorization engine task manager controls and manages the operations necessary to automatically categorize the subject listing data sets according to predetermined categories.);
a navigation module for navigating a navigation structure of each linked page to vary a selection of each element (see [0045]; [0079] – Kelkoo scraping engine is optimized to follow internal links within the site specific internal locations to extract job information data sets.); and
a storing module for storing the page links and the structured data (see [0016]; [0045]; [0070]; [0080]; [0117]).
While Hyder discloses collecting structured data and a path, Hyder fails to explicitly the further limitation of an updating module for updating the structured data according to the stored path data. Rosenberg teaches a content acquisition system configured to crawl and/or scrape path identifiers (see [0017]-[0018]), including the further limitation of
an updating module for updating the structured data according to the stored path data (see [0019]; [0094] – As each path identifier is crawled and/or the associated data object to each path identifier scraped, the content acquisition system may calculate an updated time-stamp value for the path identifier. As a result, the content acquisition system reschedules the path identifier to be crawled and/or the associated data object to be scraped again at a later time according to the updated time-stamp value.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to update the scraped data of Hyder in the manner taught by Rosenberg. One would have been motivated to do so in order to keep the data current by detecting changes to the data (Rosenberg: see [0002]).
Referring to claim 3, Hyder/Rosenberg teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the selection module receives selector data to navigate the linked page (Hyder: see [0045]; [0070]; [0079]; [0080]; [0117]).
Referring to claim 4, Hyder/Rosenberg teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the acquisition module acquires the data through screen-scraping (Hyder: see [0014]; [0079] – A job seeker seeking information about jobs will have a larger universe of job descriptions to review when utilizing an embodiment of the system described herein. Specifically, the system makes use of scraping technology, to build a database that is populated with job descriptions. The database may also include job descriptions from other sources such as job descriptions supplied by corporations seeking applicants and/or provided by methods other than through scraping.).
Referring to claim 6, Hyder/Rosenberg teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the updating module does not update the structured data where the structured data has not changed (Rosenberg: see [0094] – At step 306, the crawler module 110 may determine whether the content includes any changes. For example, the crawler module 110 may compare the scanned content to a previously stored version of the content that is stored in the corpus data store 126. If the crawler module 110 determines that there is a change from the stored content, the method may continue to step 308 where the scraper module 112 may update the stored content.).
Referring to claim 8, Hyder/Rosenberg teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the structured data of the one or more linked pages includes HTML data stored in a plurality of formats or organizational structures, and wherein the storing module stores the structured HTML data according to a uniform database format (Hyder: see [0067]; [0094] - The Data Source Adapter task module 136 takes data from different data sources, stored in the local databases as data sets are received from various inputs into the system 100 and converts the data sets of different types into normalized data sets all of one, normalized type. For example, data sets may be fed into the system 100 as text file, XML, HTML, or RSS data feeds. These different types of data sets must be normalized before further processing. The Data Source Adapter task module 136 ensures that all data sets are of a common normalized type.).
Claim(s) 2 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPub 2006/0229899 to Hyder et al (hereafter Hyder) in view of US PGPub 2016/0188717 to Rosenberg et al (hereafter Rosenberg) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent No 11,337,036 to Schu et al (hereafter Schu).
Referring to claim 2, while Hyder/Rosenberg teaches structured data with the examples of job listings and real estate listings, Hyder/Rosenberg fails to explicitly teach the further limitation wherein the structured data is event data pertaining to one or more events having a definite time, duration, or place. Schu teaches gathering events via a web crawler that scrapes activities (see column 5, line 52 – column 6, line 3 and column 6, lines 23-30), including the further limitation wherein the structured data is event data pertaining to one or more events [activity] having a definite time [event date/time], duration, or place [event location] (see column 17, lines 31-39).
Hyder/Rosenberg and Schu are analogous art since they both relate to web crawling and scraping. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the structured data of Hyder/Rosenberg to be an event as taught Schu. One would have been motivated to do so since that Hyder teaches that while the system is utilized in an employment/job search context, it can be used to manage any complex listing scheme (Hyder: see [0041]).
Referring to claim 7, the combination of Hyder/Rosenberg and Schu discloses the computer system of claim 2, wherein each event datum corresponds to an event and includes at least one of a title of the event [event description 1020], a description of the event [activities associated with the event 1050], and a date or time of the event [event date/time 1040], and the page link, and wherein the path data stores a path on the linked page for the title of the event, the description of the event, the date or time of the event, and/or the event link (Schu: see Fig 10; column 17, lines 31-39 - FIG. 10 shows an event details page. The user interface 1070 can display the event details page 1000 with the geographical map 1010. The event details page 1000 can include event description 1020, event location 1030, event date/time 1040, activities associated with the event 1050, and attendees 1060.; Rosenberg: see Fig 5A – Each entry has a path).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPub 2006/0229899 to Hyder et al (hereafter Hyder) in view of US PGPub 2016/0188717 to Rosenberg et al (hereafter Rosenberg) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of US PGPub 2023/0168995 to Retnasaba et al (hereafter Retnasaba).
Referring to claim 5, while Hyder/Rosenberg teaches screen-scraping, Hyder/Rosenberg fails to explicitly teach the further limitation wherein the screen-scraping includes: opening up a plurality of headless browser instances lacking a user interface; wherein each headless browser instance is configured to: navigate to a page link; load the page linked by the page link; and use the selector data to obtain the event data. Retnasaba et al teaches scraping using a headless browser, including the further limitations wherein the screen-scraping includes:
opening up a plurality of headless browser instances lacking a user interface (see [0065] – Scraper and crawler 132 or processor 102 creates multiple instances of a headless browser);
wherein each headless browser instance is configured to:
navigate to a page link (see [0063]; [0065] - Visiting the target website);
load the page linked by the page link (see [0063]; [0065]; [0068] – Waiting until fully loaded.); and
use the selector data to obtain the event data (see [0063]; [0065] - Captures a rendered screenshot, HTML code, CSS code, JavaScript code, browser local storage, browser session storage, browser indexed database, cookies, and other information associated with the web pages).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a headless browser to perform the screen scraping of Hyder/Rosenberg in the manner taught by Retnasaba. One would have been motivated to do so in order to increase efficiency by automatically crawling a plurality of websites simultaneously (Retnasaba: see [0065]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPub 2006/0229899 to Hyder et al (hereafter Hyder) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of US PGPub 2023/0168995 to Retnasaba et al (hereafter Retnasaba).
Referring to claim 10, while Hyder teaches screen-scraping, Hyder fails to explicitly teach the further limitation of scraping the main page by opening up a plurality of headless browser instances, each headless browser instance navigating to a respective page link and loading the respective linked page. Retnasaba et al teaches scraping using a headless browser, including the further limitation of scraping the main page by opening up a plurality of headless browser instances (see [0065] – Scraper and crawler 132 or processor 102 creates multiple instances of a headless browser), each headless browser instance navigating to a respective page link (see [0063]; [0065] - Visiting the target website) and loading the respective linked page (see [0063]; [0065]; [0068] – Waiting until fully loaded.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a headless browser to perform the screen scraping of Hyder in the manner taught by Retnasaba. One would have been motivated to do so in order to increase efficiency by automatically crawling a plurality of websites simultaneously (Retnasaba: see [0065]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPub 2006/0229899 to Hyder et al (hereafter Hyder) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of US Patent No 11,337,036 to Schu et al (hereafter Schu).
Referring to claim 11, while Hyder teaches structured data with the examples of job listings and real estate listings, Hyder fails to explicitly teach the further limitation wherein the structured data is event data pertaining to one or more events having a definite time, duration, or place. Schu teaches gathering events via a web crawler that scrapes activities (see column 5, line 52 – column 6, line 3 and column 6, lines 23-30), including the further limitation wherein the structured data is event data pertaining to one or more events [activity] having a definite time [event date/time], duration, or place [event location] (see column 17, lines 31-39).
Hyder and Schu are analogous art since they both relate to web crawling and scraping. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the structured data of Hyder to be an event as taught Schu. One would have been motivated to do so since that Hyder teaches that while the system is utilized in an employment/job search context, it can be used to manage any complex listing scheme (Hyder: see [0041]).
Claim(s) 13 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPub 2016/0188717 to Rosenberg et al (hereafter Rosenberg) in view of US PGPub 2021/0092144 to Qualls et al (hereafter Qualls) in view of US PGPub 2002/0147850 to Richards et al (hereafter Richards).
Referring to claim 13, Rosenberg discloses a computer-implemented method for updating previously acquired structured data hosted on a server, the method comprising:
determining to update one or more of the previously acquired structured data, each previously acquired structured data having been acquired via following a corresponding page link on a main page to a linked page (see [0030]; [0073]; [0083]-[0088]; Fig 2 – Determining if an entry is mature. The crawler module may identify new path identifiers embedded within content (i.e., hyperlinks) of a data object after crawling the path identifier.);
following each corresponding page link [path identifier] (see [0088] – If at step 206 the entry selection module 116 determines that the selected entry is mature, the method continues to step 210 where the crawler module 110 retrieves content using the path identifier of the selected entry.);
reacquiring each previously acquired structured datum according to path data previously associated with an element on the linked page, the element having been previously selected as the structured datum (see [0088] – If at step 206 the entry selection module 116 determines that the selected entry is mature, the method continues to step 210 where the crawler module 110 retrieves content using the path identifier of the selected entry. The scraper module may scrape content from the data object.).
While Rosenberg teaches recrawling and updating a structured datum, Rosenberg fails to explicitly teach the further limitation of automatically deleting each previously acquired structured datum for which there is no element on the linked page corresponding to the element previously selected as the structured datum; and indicating which data were updated. Qualls teaches re-crawling each endpoint (see [0035]), including the further limitation of
automatically deleting each previously acquired structured datum for which there is no element on the linked page corresponding to the element previously selected as the structured datum (see [0035] - For each non valid HTTP log entry, the automated site-map tool may be configured to, when the URL path associated with the HTTP log entry is linked to a non-active web page on the web application, delete the HTTP log entry.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to automatically delete each previously acquired structured datum of Rosenberg for which there is no element on the linked page corresponding to the element previously selected as the structured datum in the manner taught by Qualls. One would have been motivated to do so in order to delete any invalid entries to keep the data current (Qualls: see [0014]; Rosenberg: see [0002]).
While the combination of Rosenberg and Qualls (hereafter Rosenberg/Qualls) teaches updating data, Rosenberg/Qualls fails to explicitly the further limitation of indicating which data were updated. Richards teaches synchronizing data records, including the further limitation of indicating which data were updated (see [0044] - This step could be performed in various ways, including checking a synchronization status log kept in a database on the central network, identifying when the last time the client device synchronized and identifying data objects that have since been updated, deleted or created.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to indicate which data of Rosenberg/Qualls has been updated in the manner taught by Richards. One would have been motivated to do so in order to quickly identify the status of the data (Richards: see [0044]).
Referring to claim 16, Rosenberg/Qualls/Richards teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 13, wherein determining to update the one or more of the previously acquired structured data is performed according to received user input (Rosenberg: see [0038]).
Referring to claim 17, Rosenberg/Qualls/Richards teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 13, wherein determining to update the one or more of the previously acquired structured data is performed automatically (Rosenberg: see [0084]-[0088]).
Referring to claim 18, Rosenberg/Qualls/Richards teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 13 further comprising providing a log [status log] for recording which data were deleted, which data were updated, and which data were not deleted or updated (Richards: see [0044] – This step could be performed in various ways, including checking a synchronization status log kept in a database on the central network, identifying when the last time the client device synchronized and identifying data objects that have since been updated, deleted or created).
Referring to claim 19, Rosenberg/Qualls/Richards teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 13, wherein the one or more previously acquired structured data is updated only if the one or more previously acquired structured data has changed (Rosenberg: see [0094] – At step 306, the crawler module 110 may determine whether the content includes any changes. For example, the crawler module 110 may compare the scanned content to a previously stored version of the content that is stored in the corpus data store 126. If the crawler module 110 determines that there is a change from the stored content, the method may continue to step 308 where the scraper module 112 may update the stored content.).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPub 2016/0188717 to Rosenberg et al (hereafter Rosenberg) in view of US PGPub 2021/0092144 to Qualls et al (hereafter Qualls) in view of US PGPub 2002/0147850 to Richards et al (hereafter Richards) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of US PGPub 2023/0168995 to Retnasaba et al (hereafter Retnasaba).
Referring to claim 14, while Rosenberg/Qualls/Richards teaches screen-scraping, Rosenberg/Qualls/Richards fails to explicitly teach the further limitation of scraping the main page by opening up a plurality of headless browser instances, each headless browser instance navigating to a respective page link and loading the respective linked page. Retnasaba et al teaches scraping using a headless browser, including the further limitation of scraping the main page by opening up a plurality of headless browser instances (see [0065] – Scraper and crawler 132 or processor 102 creates multiple instances of a headless browser), each headless browser instance navigating to a respective page link (see [0063]; [0065] - Visiting the target website) and loading the respective linked page (see [0063]; [0065]; [0068] – Waiting until fully loaded.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a headless browser to perform the screen scraping of Rosenberg/Qualls/Richards in the manner taught by Retnasaba. One would have been motivated to do so in order to increase efficiency by automatically crawling a plurality of websites simultaneously (Retnasaba: see [0065]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPub 2016/0188717 to Rosenberg et al (hereafter Rosenberg) in view of US PGPub 2021/0092144 to Qualls et al (hereafter Qualls) in view of US PGPub 2002/0147850 to Richards et al (hereafter Richards) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of US Patent No 11,337,036 to Schu et al (hereafter Schu).
Referring to claim 15, while Rosenberg/Qualls/Richards teaches scraping data, Rosenberg/Qualls/Richards fails to explicitly teach the further limitation wherein the structured data is event data pertaining to one or more events having a definite time, duration, or place. Schu teaches gathering events via a web crawler that scrapes activities (see column 5, line 52 – column 6, line 3 and column 6, lines 23-30), including the further limitation wherein the structured data is event data pertaining to one or more events [activity] having a definite time [event date/time], duration, or place [event location] (see column 17, lines 31-39).
Rosenberg/Qualls/Richards and Schu are analogous art since they both relate to web crawling and scraping. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the structured data of Rosenberg/Qualls/Richards to be an event as taught Schu. One would have been motivated to do so since any type of data can be scraped from a website and an even is merely a specific type of data (Rosenberg: see [0018]).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPub 2016/0188717 to Rosenberg et al (hereafter Rosenberg) in view of US PGPub 2021/0092144 to Qualls et al (hereafter Qualls) in view of US PGPub 2002/0147850 to Richards et al (hereafter Richards) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of US PGPub 2006/0229899 to Hyder et al (hereafter Hyder).
Referring to claim 20, Rosenberg/Qualls/Richards fails to explicitly teach the further limitation wherein the structured data of the one or more linked pages includes HTML data stored in a plurality of formats or organizational structures, and wherein reacquiring each previously acquired structured datum includes storing the structured HTML data according to a uniform database format. Hyder teaches screen scraping data, including the further limitations of wherein the structured data of the one or more linked pages includes HTML data stored in a plurality of formats or organizational structures, and wherein reacquiring each previously acquired structured datum includes storing the structured HTML data according to a uniform database format (Hyder: see [0067]; [0094] - The Data Source Adapter task module 136 takes data from different data sources, stored in the local databases as data sets are received from various inputs into the system 100 and converts the data sets of different types into normalized data sets all of one, normalized type. For example, data sets may be fed into the system 100 as text file, XML, HTML, or RSS data feeds. These different types of data sets must be normalized before further processing. The Data Source Adapter task module 136 ensures that all data sets are of a common normalized type.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structured data of Rosenberg/Qualls/Richards be HTML and then to store the data in a unform format as taught by Hyder. One would have been motivated to do so in order to have normalized data for further processing (Hyder: see [0067]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PGPub 2023/0018387 to Kuksta et al teaches screen scraping with a headless browser.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY LOVEL WILSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2750. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30.
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, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached at 571-270-1760. 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.
/KIMBERLY L WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165
Prosecution Insights