DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to arguments filed on 7/27/2026.
Claims 21 – 40 are pending.
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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21, 22, 25 – 28, 31 – 35 and 38 – 40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 3, 8, 9, 12, 16 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12067410. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the instant application are just broader variant of what is claimed in USPAT 12067410, see comparison table below for details:
Instant application
USPAT 12067410
21. (New) A method, comprising: performing, by one or more computers on a service provider network:
detecting that a user has disconnected from a virtual desktop instance, the virtual desktop instance implemented using a computing resource instance and a storage volume;
determining that the computing resource instance implementing the disconnected virtual desktop instance should be shut down responsive to disuse and satisfaction of criteria associated with disuse of service provider resources, wherein the criteria comprises at least an amount of time that must pass following a disconnection before satisfaction of the criteria associated with disuse of the service provider resources;
and shutting down the computing resource instance responsive to the determining.
Claim 1: A method, comprising: performing, by one or more computers on a service provider network:
detecting that a user has disconnected from a virtual desktop instance, the virtual desktop instance implemented using a computing resource instance and a storage volume;
determining, in response to detecting that the user has disconnected from the virtual desktop instance and based at least in part on criteria associated with shutting down service provider resources, that the computing resource instance implementing the disconnected virtual desktop instance should be shut down, wherein the criteria comprises one or more of: an amount of time that must pass following a disconnection before shutting down service provider resources; a window of time during which service provider resources can be shut down; or a window of time during which service provider resources cannot be shut down;
shutting down the computing resource instance while maintaining data for the virtual desktop instance on the storage volume responsive to the determining.
Claim 22
Claim 1, last limitation.
Claim 25
Claim 2
Claim 26
Claim 3
Claim 27 (system variant of claim 21)
Claim 8
Claim 28 (system variant of claim 22)
Claim 8, last limitation.
Claim 31 (system variant of claim 25)
Claim 12
Claim 32 (system variant of claim 26)
Claim 3
Claim 33
Claim 9
Claim 34 (CRM variant of claim 21)
Claim 16
Claim 35 (CRM variant of claim 22)
Claim 16, last limitation.
Claim 38 (CRM variant of claim 25)
Claim 17
Claim 39 (CRM variant of claim 26)
Claim 3
Claim 40 (CRM variant of claim 33)
Claim 9
Claims 21, 22, 25 – 28, 31, 32, 34, 35, 38 and 39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4, 11 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11048534. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the instant application are just broader variant of what is claimed in USPAT 11048534, see comparison table below for details:
Instant application
USPAT 11048534
21. (New) A method, comprising: performing, by one or more computers on a service provider network:
detecting that a user has disconnected from a virtual desktop instance, the virtual desktop instance implemented using a computing resource instance and a storage volume;
determining that the computing resource instance implementing the disconnected virtual desktop instance should be shut down responsive to disuse and satisfaction of criteria associated with disuse of service provider resources, wherein the criteria comprises at least an amount of time that must pass following a disconnection before satisfaction of the criteria associated with disuse of the service provider resources;
and shutting down the computing resource instance responsive to the determining.
Claim 4, rewritten into independent format:
A method, comprising: performing, by one or more computers on a service provider network:
executing a virtual desktop instance comprising a computing resource instance and a storage volume attached to the computing resource instance over a network, wherein a connection for a user of the service provider network is supported to the virtual desktop instance through a client over a network connection; (claim 1, limitation 1)
shutting down the virtual desktop instance, responsive to detection that the user has disconnected from the virtual desktop instance based at least in part on monitoring of the network connection, while maintaining data for the virtual desktop instance on the storage volume, wherein shutting down the virtual desktop instance comprises shutting down the computing resource instance, detaching the storage volume from the computing resource instance, and making the computing resource instance available for another use; (Claim 1, limitation 2)
wherein the shutting down of the virtual desktop instance is further responsive to a determination based at least in part on a resource management policy specifying criteria associated with shutting down service provider resources including the virtual desktop instance; (claim 2)
wherein the criteria comprises one or more of: an amount of time that must pass following a disconnection before shutting down the service provider resources; a window of time during which service provider resources can be shut down; a window of time during which service provider resources cannot be shut down; or a schedule for shutting down service provider resources; (claim 4)
and restarting the virtual desktop instance, responsive to detecting that the user has reconnected to the virtual desktop instance through a client, comprising attaching for network access the storage volume to a different computing resource instance and booting up the different computing resource instance for the virtual desktop instance. (claim 1, limitation 3)
Claim 22
Claim 4 in independent format, by the way of claim 1, limitation 2.
Claim 25
Claim 4 in independent format, by the way of claim 1, limitation 3.
Claim 26
Claim 4 in independent format, by the way of claim 1, limitation 3.
Claim 27 (system variant of claim 21)
Claim 11
Claim 28 (system variant of claim 22)
Claim 11 in independent format, by the way of claim 8, limitation 2.
Claim 31 (system variant of claim 25)
Claim 11 in independent format, by the way of claim 8, limitation 3.
Claim 32 (system variant of claim 26)
Claim 11 in independent format, by the way of claim 8, limitation 3.
Claim 34 (CRM variant of claim 21)
Claim 18
Claim 35 (CRM variant of claim 22)
Claim 18 in independent format, by the way of claim 15, limitation 2.
Claim 38 (CRM variant of claim 25)
Claim 18 in independent format, by the way of claim 15, limitation 3.
Claim 39 (CRM variant of claim 26)
Claim 18 in independent format, by the way of claim 15, limitation 3.
Claims 21, 22, 25 – 28, 31, 32, 34, 35, 38 and 39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 10268493. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the instant application are just broader variant of what is claimed in USPAT 10268493, see comparison table below for details:
Instant application
USPAT 10268493
21. (New) A method, comprising: performing, by one or more computers on a service provider network:
detecting that a user has disconnected from a virtual desktop instance, the virtual desktop instance implemented using a computing resource instance and a storage volume;
determining that the computing resource instance implementing the disconnected virtual desktop instance should be shut down responsive to disuse and satisfaction of criteria associated with disuse of service provider resources, wherein the criteria comprises at least an amount of time that must pass following a disconnection before satisfaction of the criteria associated with disuse of the service provider resources;
and shutting down the computing resource instance responsive to the determining.
Claim 4, rewritten into independent format:
A method, comprising: performing, by one or more computers on a service provider network:
provisioning, by a computing resource instance manager implemented on one of the one or more computers on behalf of a service provider customer, resources that implement a virtual desktop instance for a user, wherein the resources that implement the virtual desktop instance comprise a computing resource instance and a storage volume accessible to the computing resource instance over a network; (claim 1, limitation 1)
detecting that the user has connected to the virtual desktop instance through a client over a network connection and that the virtual desktop instance has been started, wherein starting the virtual desktop instance comprises attaching for network access the storage volume to the computing resource instance; detecting that the user has disconnected from the virtual desktop instance based at least in part on monitoring of the network connection for an inactivity period that exceeds an inactivity threshold; determining, in response to the detection that the user has disconnected from the virtual desktop instance and based at least in part on a resource management policy, that the virtual desktop instance should be shut down; (claim 1, limitations 2 – 4)
wherein the resource management policy specifies criteria associated with shutting down service provider resources; (claim 2)
wherein the criteria comprises one or more of: an amount of time that must pass following a disconnection before shutting down the service provider resources; a window of time during which service provider resources can be shut down; a window of time during which service provider resources cannot be shut down; or a schedule for shutting down service provider resources; (claim 4)
shutting down, in response to the determination, the virtual desktop instance while maintaining data for the virtual desktop instance on the storage volume, wherein shutting down the virtual desktop instance comprises shutting down the computing resource instance, detaching the storage volume from the virtual desktop instance, and making the computing resource instance available for another user; (claim 1, limitation 5)
detecting that a user has reconnected to the virtual desktop instance through a client; and in response to detecting that a user has reconnected to the virtual desktop instance, restarting the virtual desktop instance, wherein restarting the virtual desktop instance comprises attaching for network access the storage volume to a different computing resource instance and booting up the different computing resource instance for the virtual desktop instance. (claim 1, limitations 6 – 7)
Claim 22
Claim 4 in independent format, by the way of claim 1, limitation 5.
Claim 25
Claim 4 in independent format, by the way of claim 1, limitation 6 - 7.
Claim 26
Claim 4 in independent format, by the way of claim 1, limitation 6 - 7.
Claim 27 (system variant of claim 21)
Claim 4
Claim 28 (system variant of claim 22)
Claim 4 in independent format, by the way of claim 1, limitation 5.
Claim 31 (system variant of claim 25)
Claim 4 in independent format, by the way of claim 1, limitation 6 - 7.
Claim 32 (system variant of claim 26)
Claim 4 in independent format, by the way of claim 1, limitation 6 - 7.
Claim 34 (CRM variant of claim 21)
Claim 4
Claim 35 (CRM variant of claim 22)
Claim 4 in independent format, by the way of claim 1, limitation 5.
Claim 38 (CRM variant of claim 25)
Claim 4 in independent format, by the way of claim 1, limitation 6 - 7.
Claim 39 (CRM variant of claim 26)
Claim 4 in independent format, by the way of claim 1, limitation 6 - 7.
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.
Claim(s) 21 – 32 and 34 – 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das et al (US 20130073703, prior art part of IDS dated 7/8/2024, hereinafter Das), in view of Crosbie et al (US 20080235361, prior art part of IDS dated 7/8/2024, hereinafter Crosbie).
As per claim 21, Das discloses: A method, comprising: performing, by one or more computers on a service provider network:
detecting that a user has disconnected from a virtual desktop instance, the virtual desktop instance implemented using a computing resource instance and a storage volume; (Das [0094]: “detecting user has logged out”; [0033].)
and shutting down the computing resource instance responsive to the determining. (Das [0094]: detecting user has logged out, then the VHD is dismounted from the endpoint and saved for subsequent use; [0082]: “When the user disconnects or logs off from the remote desktop, the virtual profile is demounted from the endpoint and saved for subsequent user sessions. The virtual profile thus saves information regarding the user's state when the user is disconnected and provides the information as needed for launching the next user session”.)
Das did not explicitly disclose:
determining that the computing resource instance implementing the disconnected virtual desktop instance should be shut down responsive to disuse and satisfaction of criteria associated with disuse of service provider resources, wherein the criteria comprises at least an amount of time that must pass following a disconnection before satisfaction of the criteria associated with disuse of the service provider resources;
However, Crosbie teaches:
determining that the computing resource instance implementing the disconnected virtual desktop instance should be shut down responsive to disuse and satisfaction of criteria associated with disuse of service provider resources, wherein the criteria comprises at least an amount of time that must pass following a disconnection before satisfaction of the criteria associated with disuse of the service provider resources; (Crosbie [0046]: “The present invention also provides a level of "stickiness" in terms of retaining session connections during breaks in the network… The time duration of this association is retained by the CB is dependent upon certain variables that may include, without limitation, whether the break is a log-out versus disconnections and how much time has passed since the last log-on. For instance, the occurrence of an intermittent disconnect would not force a user to re-build a session, whereas a time since last log-on of 24-hours would likely remove any stored association of a user with a given hosted desktop.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Crosbie into that of Das in order to that the computing resource instance implementing the disconnected virtual desktop instance should be shut down responsive to disuse and satisfaction of criteria associated with disuse of service provider resources, wherein the criteria comprises at least an amount of time that must pass following a disconnection before satisfaction of the criteria associated with disuse of the service provider resources. Das [0094] teaches detecting a user has logged out of the desktop session and shutting down the provisioned resources. Crosbie [0046] teaches adding a layer of check to determine the difference between log out and disconnections and provided a motivation to enable such a combination by teaching “remote server resources can be judiciously utilized without impacting a remote user's experience when working over poor network connections. This ensures that users keep their desktop configuration even when there is a network interruption, though hosted desktops are not tied up unnecessarily. The hosted desktop communications API (or hosted desktop agent within the hosted desktop) would be used to differentiate between log-offs and disconnects”. Such combination would enhance the overall appeals of all references by ensuring resources do not get deprovisioned unnecessarily in case of disconnection instead of log out and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 22, the combination of Das and Crosbie further teach:
The method of claim 21, wherein shutting down the computing resource instance comprises maintaining data for the virtual desktop instance on the storage volume. (Das [0094]: detecting user has logged out, then the VHD is dismounted from the endpoint and saved for subsequent use; [0082]: “When the user disconnects or logs off from the remote desktop, the virtual profile is demounted from the endpoint and saved for subsequent user sessions. The virtual profile thus saves information regarding the user's state when the user is disconnected and provides the information as needed for launching the next user session”.)
As per claim 23, the combination of Das and Crosbie further teach:
The method of claim 21, wherein the criteria associated with disuse of the service provider resources includes a time period since the user has disconnected from the virtual desktop instance. (Crosbie [0046]: “The present invention also provides a level of "stickiness" in terms of retaining session connections during breaks in the network… The time duration of this association is retained by the CB is dependent upon certain variables that may include, without limitation, whether the break is a log-out versus disconnections and how much time has passed since the last log-on. For instance, the occurrence of an intermittent disconnect would not force a user to re-build a session, whereas a time since last log-on of 24-hours would likely remove any stored association of a user with a given hosted desktop.”)
As per claim 24, the combination of Das and Crosbie further teach:
The method of claim 21, wherein the criteria associated with disuse of the service provider resources includes a time period during which the disconnected virtual desktop instance is permitted to be shutdown. (Crosbie [0046]: “The present invention also provides a level of "stickiness" in terms of retaining session connections during breaks in the network… The time duration of this association is retained by the CB is dependent upon certain variables that may include, without limitation, whether the break is a log-out versus disconnections and how much time has passed since the last log-on. For instance, the occurrence of an intermittent disconnect would not force a user to re-build a session, whereas a time since last log-on of 24-hours would likely remove any stored association of a user with a given hosted desktop.”)
As per claim 25, the combination of Das and Crosbie further teach:
The method of claim 21, further comprising: detecting that the user has reconnected to the virtual desktop instance through a client; and in response to detecting that the user has reconnected to the virtual desktop instance, restarting at least some of the computing resource instance that implemented the virtual desktop instance. (Das [0094]: an endpoint may be notified that a user has logged into the system, the system searches for VHD and determines whether or VHD already exists for the user, if there is no VHD for the user, then a VHD is created, if a VHD already exists for the user or a VHD was created, then the user VHD is moved to the endpoint, the user’s desktop session may then be launched.)
As per claim 26, the combination of Das and Crosbie further teach:
The method of claim 25, wherein restarting at least some of the resources that implemented the virtual desktop instance comprises: booting up the computing resource instance or a different computing resource instance for the virtual desktop instance; and attaching the storage volume to the computing resource instance or the different computing resource instance. (Das [0094]: an endpoint may be notified that a user has logged into the system, the system searches for VHD and determines whether or VHD already exists for the user, if there is no VHD for the user, then a VHD is created, if a VHD already exists for the user or a VHD was created, then the user VHD is moved to the endpoint, the user’s desktop session may then be launched.)
As per claim 27, it is the system variant of claim 21 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale. (Das figure 2: hardware.)
As per claim 28, it is the system variant of claim 22 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 29, it is the system variant of claim 23 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 30, it is the system variant of claim 24 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 31, it is the system variant of claim 25 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 32, it is the system variant of claim 26 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 34, it is the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium variant of claim 27 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale. (Das [0022]: CRM)
As per claim 35, it is the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium variant of claim 28 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 36, it is the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium variant of claim 29 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 37, it is the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium variant of claim 30 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 38, it is the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium variant of claim 31 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 39, it is the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium variant of claim 32 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 33 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das and Crosbie, and further in view of Swaminathan et al (US 20150160980, prior art part of IDS dated 7/08/2024, hereinafter Swaminathan).
As per claim 33, the combination of Das and Crosbie did not explicitly teach:
The system of claim 27, wherein to detect that the user has disconnected from the virtual desktop instance the computing resource instance manager is configured to: monitor data that is transmitted between a client and the virtualized computing resource instance; and compare the data to one or more patterns or characteristics.
However, Swaminathan teaches:
The system of claim 27, wherein to detect that the user has disconnected from the virtual desktop instance the computing resource instance manager is configured to: monitor data that is transmitted between a client and the virtualized computing resource instance; and compare the data to one or more patterns or characteristics. (Swaminathan [0043].)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Swaminathan into that of Das and Crosbie in order to detect that the user has disconnected from the virtual desktop instance the computing resource instance manager is configured to: monitor data that is transmitted between a client and the virtualized computing resource instance; and compare the data to one or more patterns or characteristics. Das [0094] teaches detecting a user has logged out of the desktop session while Swaminathan teaches that VM may be shut down due to policies derived based on historical data of network activities, thus applicant have merely claimed the combination of known parts in the field to achieve predictable results and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 40, it is the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium variant of claim 33 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 21:
Applicant argued on pages 8 – 10 that Crosbie reference failed to teach claim 21 by arguing that “Crosbie fails to disclose any conditional shutting down or the specific criteria recited in the claim, therefore Applicant respectfully submits that the combination of references fails to teach or suggest determining that the computing resource instance implementing the disconnected virtual desktop instance should be shut down responsive to disuse and satisfaction of criteria associated with disuse of service provider resources, wherein the criteria comprises at least an amount of time that must pass following a disconnection before satisfaction of the criteria associated with disuse of the service provider resources, as claimed.”
The examiner disagrees, cited paragraph of Crosbie [0046] teaches “The time duration of this association is retained by the CB is dependent upon certain variables that may include, without limitation, whether the break is a log-out versus disconnections and how much time has passed since the last log-on.”. In other words, Crosbie teaches the threshold time of resource being released would be user either log-out or disconnect, and plus a period of 24 hours since last log-on, which teaches the claimed limitations of “determining that the computing resource instance implementing the disconnected virtual desktop instance should be shut down responsive to disuse and satisfaction of criteria associated with disuse of service provider resources, wherein the criteria comprises at least an amount of time that must pass following a disconnection before satisfaction of the criteria associated with disuse of the service provider resources;”.
Rest of the claims:
No distinct arguments are presented.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES M SWIFT whose telephone number is (571)270-7756. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 7PM.
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, April Blair can be reached at 5712701014. 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.
/CHARLES M SWIFT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2196
Prosecution Insights