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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on June 28, 2024. Claims 2-13 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on November 1, 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Request for priority to Provisional App. No. 63/393,705 dated July 29, 2022 and Provisional App. No. 63/410,163 dated September 26, 2022 is acknowledged. Examiner notes Applicant may be requested to perfect one or more of the claims in the situation where applied prior art has priority falling between the filing date of the non-provisional application the date of the provisional application. No action by Applicant is requested at this time.
Additionally, priority to U.S. App. No. 18/352,997 dated July 14, 2023 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a. a space object data interface… in claim 2. Structure for this limitation has not been found in the original disclosure;
b. a data interface… in claim 2. Structure for this limitation has not been found in the original disclosure.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 2 along with the corresponding dependent claims 3-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, claim 2 contains two limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) above, a space object data interface… and a data interface…, and the original disclosure fails to include a corresponding structure for these limitations. Ways to correct this issue may be found in the corresponding rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below.
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.
Claim 2 along with the corresponding dependent claims 3-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitations a space object data interface… and a data interface… of claim 2 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, both the claim language, Fig. 52 of the original disclosure, and the original specification indicates that the interface is not software associated with the claimed processor and no structure has been found anywhere in the original disclosure for performing the claimed functions. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 2-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 2 is directed toward a system. Therefore, independent claim 2 along with the corresponding dependent claims 3-13 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether one or more of the claims recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: (1) mental processes, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or (3) mathematical concepts. In this case, the independent claim 2 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover certain mental processes. The language of independent claim 2 is used for illustration:
A system for generating data configured to display an annotation of a maneuver associated with a first space object, the system comprising:
a space object data interface configured to receive a plurality of movement parameters and positional indicators associated with one or more space objects (receiving data is considered insignificant extra-solution activity, as discussed further below);
a data interface configured to transmit a report of one or more target space objects of the one or more space objects (sending data is considered insignificant extra-solution activity, as discussed further below);
a non-transitory, computer-readable storage storing machine-executable instructions (this limitation amounts to merely implementing the abstract idea using a generic computer); and
a hardware processor in communication with the computer-readable storage (this limitation amounts to merely implementing the abstract idea using a generic computer),
wherein the instructions, when executed by the hardware processor (this limitation amounts to merely implementing the abstract idea using a generic computer), are configured to cause the system to:
receive data associated with the one or more target space objects (receiving data is considered insignificant extra-solution activity, as discussed further below);
generate data configured to display, within a first display region, a longitude-time plot and an indication of at least the first space object of the one or more target space objects within the longitude-time plot based at least on the positional indicators associated with the first space object (a person may mentally think about a longitude-time plot and indication of the space objects within the plot based on the received data and may mentally generate a display image);
determine, based at least on the positional indicators associated with the first space object, an orbital path of the first space object (a person may mentally thin about an orbital path of the first space object based on the received information);
identify the maneuver associated with the first space object (a person may mentally identify a maneuver associated with the first space object); and
generate updated data configured to display, within the longitude-time plot, the annotation of the maneuver (a person may mentally generate a display including the plot and maneuver).
As explained above, independent claim 2 recites at least one abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”; see at least MPEP 2106.04(d).
In this case, the mental processes/certain methods of organizing human activity/mathematical concepts judicial exception is/are not integrated into a practical application. For example, independent claim 2 recites the additional elements of a space object data interface configured to receive…, a data interface configured to transmit…, a non-transitory, computer-readable storage storing machine-executable instructions…, and a hardware processor…. These limitations amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer, add insignificant extra solution activity, and/or generally link use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; see at least MPEP 2106.04(d). More specifically,
a. a space object data interface configured to receive… found in independent claim 2. This limitation, receiving data, is considered insignificant extra-solution activity.
b. a data interface configured to transmit… found in independent claim 2. This limitation, sending data, is considered insignificant extra-solution activity.
c. a non-transitory, computer-readable storage storing machine-executable instructions… found in independent claim 2. This limitation amounts to merely implementing an abstract idea using a generic computer.
d. a hardware processor… found in independent claim 2. This limitation amounts to merely implementing an abstract idea using a generic computer.
Therefore, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing significant that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Because the additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by imposing meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, independent claim 2 is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional element of limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea and, therefore, does not add significantly more. Limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, as discussed above, the limitations of a space object data interface configured to receive… and a data interface configured to transmit… as recited above, are considered insignificant extra solution activities.
A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A must be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if the element is more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. In this case, the additional limitations of a space object data interface configured to receive… and a data interface configured to transmit… are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, because they have all been deemed insignificant extra solution activity by one or more Courts; see at least MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g):
a. a space object data interface configured to receive… is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity under TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art."; and
b. a data interface configured to transmit… is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity under TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art."
Because the claims fail to recite anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, independent claims 2-13 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 3-13 have been given the full two-part analysis, including analyzing the additional limitations, both individually and in combination. Dependent claims 3-13, when analyzed both individually and in combination, are also patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 based on same analysis as above. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims fail to establish that the dependent claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 3-13 are patent ineligible. Therefore, claims 2-13 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner notes that none of the displaying limitations appear to actually require the displaying and, instead, merely require the generation of the display data. Examiner further notes that actually requiring the displaying of the data in and of itself is not enough to overcome the above rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101. However, positively claiming the displaying and as being responsive to user input, as claimed in claim 3 or claim 5, would result in withdrawal of the above rejections.
Examiner encourages Applicant to set an interview to discuss potential amendments for overcoming the above rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 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 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.
Claims 2-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0026524 (hereinafter, “Hendrix”).
Regarding claim 2, Hendrix discloses A system for generating data configured to display an annotation of a maneuver associated with a first space object (see at least [0005]-[0006] and the publication generally), the system comprising:
a space object data interface configured to receive a plurality of movement parameters and positional indicators associated with one or more space objects (see at least [0042]; tracked space objects data may be received);
a data interface configured to transmit a report of one or more target space objects of the one or more space objects (see at least [0151]-[0152]; reports associated with the space objects may be generated and sent);
a non-transitory, computer-readable storage storing machine-executable instructions (see at least [0185]); and
a hardware processor in communication with the computer-readable storage (see at least [0185]),
wherein the instructions, when executed by the hardware processor (see at least [0185]), are configured to cause the system to:
receive data associated with the one or more target space objects (see at least [0185]; identifiers associated with one or more space objects may be received);
generate data configured to display, within a first display region, a longitude-time plot and an indication of at least the first space object of the one or more target space objects within the longitude-time plot based at least on the positional indicators associated with the first space object (see at least [0185]; a longitude-time plot may be generated and displayed showing path parameters of the one or more space objects);
determine, based at least on the positional indicators associated with the first space object, an orbital path of the first space object (see at least [0185]; a longitude-time plot may be generated and displayed showing path parameters of the one or more space objects);
identify the maneuver associated with the first space object (see at least [0185]; a maneuver of the first space object may be identified); and
generate updated data configured to display, within the longitude-time plot, the annotation of the maneuver (see at least Fig. 16, [0146] and [0185]-[0186]; the maneuver may be annotated via the display).
Regarding claim 3, Hendrix discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Additionally, Hendrix discloses wherein the indication of the one or more target space objects comprises a user selection, via a user interface of the one or more target space objects (see at least [0050], [0092]-[0093], and [0141]; the user may identify the area in space for processing which includes the one or more target space objects, and the user may directly select the target space object and orbit).
Regarding claim 4, Hendrix discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Additionally, Hendrix discloses wherein the report comprises a maneuver spot report indicative of path parameters associated with the first space object (see at least [0141] and [0151]-[0152]; the reports may include path parameters/maneuvers of multiple space objects).
Regarding claim 5, Hendrix discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Additionally, Hendrix discloses wherein identifying the maneuver associated with the first space object comprises receiving a user selection, via a user interface of maneuver parameters associated with the maneuver (see at least [0141]; the user may identify the type of transfer (i.e., maneuver) and parameters corresponding to it).
Regarding claim 6, Hendrix discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Additionally, Hendrix discloses wherein identifying the maneuver associated with the first space object comprises determining maneuver parameters associated with the maneuver based at least in part on the plurality of movement parameters associated with the first space object (see at least [0050], [0092]-[0093], and [0141]; the user may identify the area in space for processing which includes the one or more target space objects, and the user may directly select the target space object and orbit along with a maneuver associated with the object and based on its orbital path).
Regarding claim 7, Hendrix discloses all of the limitations of claim 6. Additionally, Hendrix discloses wherein determining the maneuver parameters is further based on the orbital path (see at least [0050], [0092]-[0093], and [0141]; the user may identify the area in space for processing which includes the one or more target space objects, and the user may directly select the target space object and orbital path).
Regarding claim 8, Hendrix discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Additionally, Hendrix discloses wherein displaying, within the longitude-time plot, the indication of the maneuver comprises displaying the annotation at a location within the longitude-time plot based on maneuver parameters of the maneuver (see at least Fig. 16, [0146] and [0185]-[0186]; the maneuver may be annotated via the display with parameters on the longitude-time plot).
Regarding claim 9, Hendrix discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Additionally, Hendrix discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the hardware processor, are further configured to cause the system to transmit, via the data interface to a remote computing device, maneuver parameters associated with the maneuver (see at least Fig. 16, [0146], [0151]-[0152], and [0185]-[0186]; reports associated with the space objects may be generated and sent).
Regarding claim 10, Hendrix discloses all of the limitations of claim 9. Additionally, Hendrix discloses wherein transmitting the maneuver parameters is based on a determination that the first space object is associated with a change in one or more movement parameters that exceed a parameter threshold (see at least [0158]; the system may automatically determine a parameter threshold that must be exceeded before an alert is triggered/transferred).
Regarding claim 11, Hendrix discloses all of the limitations of claim 10. Additionally, Hendrix discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the hardware processor, are further configured to cause the system to:
update a display of the longitude-time plot, wherein the updated display of the longitude-time plot comprises at least one of a panned, rotated, and/or zoomed perspective of the longitude-time plot (see at least [0175]; the display may update in reaction to user input, including zooming).
Regarding claim 13, Hendrix discloses all of the limitations of claim 10. Additionally, Hendrix discloses wherein the movement parameters comprises a set of identifiers including a name identifier, a time identifier, a latitude identifier, and a longitude identifier (see at least [0072] and [0111]; the identifiers may include a timestamp, name identifier, and horizontal/vertical tracking lines (i.e., latitude and longitude identifiers)).
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hendrix.
Regarding claim 12, Hendrix discloses all of the limitations of claim 10. Additionally, Hendrix discloses wherein when executed by the hardware processor, are further configured generate and store in an uncurated alert database an uncurated alert data object, the uncurated alert data object comprising the change in one or more movement parameters that exceed a parameter threshold (see at least [0158] and [0247]; alerts associated with objects exceeding movement parameters may be documented and stored, and any type of data repository may be used for storage purposes).
Hendrix does not explicitly teach that the type of data repository is an uncurated repository. However, Hendrix does disclose that any type of data repository may be used, and uncurated repositories are old and well-known types of data repositories. Examiner asserts that, based on the disclosure of Hendrix and the general knowledge available to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to us an uncurated database for general data storage. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try using an uncurated database as it is one of only two possible options: an uncurated and a curated database. For at least these reasons, Examiner asserts that claim 12 is obvious over Hendrix.
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0266764 which pertains to time and name identifiers of space object being displayed via a longitudinal-time plot.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY P YOUNG whose telephone number is (313)446-6575. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30 AM- 4:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
TIFFANY YOUNG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3666
/TIFFANY P YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3666