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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 07/26/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Examiner’s Note
Please note that Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirely as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities: it appears to be a typographical error, at the end of the claim there is an apostrophe (’). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 and 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding, claim 3, the limitation, “a user input” is unclear as to whether the user input in claim 3 is the same as the user input in claim 1 appeared.
Regarding, claim 12, the limitation, “a user input” is unclear as to whether the user input in claim 12 is the same as the user input in claim 9 appeared.
Clarification and/or correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 1, this claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directing to a method claim under Step 1.
1. A method, comprising;
creating or determining an application variable associated with an operational value of a base application;
receiving a user input from a client device, wherein the user input specifies a value of the application variable; and
generating an application copy of the base application using the value of the application variable.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “creating or determining an application variable associated with an operational value of a base application,” and “generating an application copy of the base application using the value of the application variable” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. For example, a person is capable of using an application variable’s value with the aid of pen and paper for generating identical copy of a base application/program. Therefore, these limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2A, the additional elements “from a client device” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions for executing/applying/running some device which merely using generic computing equipment to execute/run the software tools to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). For the additional elements “receiving a user input…, wherein the user input specifies a value of the application variable” do nothing more than to add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering data for software tools. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include 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, the additional elements of “from a client device” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer and/or computer components to carry out the exception, thus, cannot amount to an inventive concept. See MPEP 2105.06(f). For the additional elements “receiving a user input…, wherein the user input specifies a value of the application variable” the courts have recognized storing and receiving information in memory as a well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or an insignificant extra-solution activity (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the user input is received via a user interface of the client device.
The limitations, the user input is received via a user interface for this claim further recite an additional insignificant extra solution activity under step 2A, Prong 2. For the limitation client device amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer and/or mere computer components to carry out the exception under Step 2A, Prong 2.
3. The method of claim 1, comprising: causing display of a prompt for a user to input the value of the application variable.
The limitations for this claim further recite an additional insignificant extra solution activity under step 2A, Prong 2.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the application variable comprises a name for the application copy, one or more table names, one or more rule customizations, one or more table definitions or configurations, or one or more UI customizations.
The limitations for this claim further recite an additional mental process under Step 2A, Prong 1.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the application variable is included as part of an application template generated based on the base application.
The limitations for this claim further recite an additional mental process under Step 2A, Prong 1.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the base application is associated with a plurality of potential application variables including the application variable.
The limitations for this claim further recite an additional mental process under Step 2A, Prong 1.
7. The method of claim 6, wherein the application variable is obtained instead of the other potential application variables based on one or more of a historical pattern or trend related to application variable selection or utilization for an organization.’
The limitations for this claim further recite an additional insignificant extra solution activity under step 2A, Prong 2.
8. The method of claim 6, wherein the application variable is obtained instead of the other potential application variables based on organizational guidance or policies that specify the application variable or types of application variables that may be configured when generating an application copy.
The limitations for this claim further recite an additional insignificant extra solution activity under step 2A, Prong 2.
Claim 9, this claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directing to a computer-readable medium claim under Step 1.
9. A non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing code executable by one or more processors of a computing system, wherein the code, when executed, causes the computing system to perform operations comprising:
creating or determining an application variable associated with an operational value of a base application;
receiving a user input from a client device, wherein the user input specifies a value of the application variable; and
generating an application copy of the base application using the value of the application variable.
Regarding claim 9, the limitations “creating or determining an application variable associated with an operational value of a base application,” and “generating an application copy of the base application using the value of the application variable” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. For example, a person is capable of using an application variable’s value with the aid of pen and paper for generating identical copy of a base application/program. Therefore, these limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2A, the additional elements “A non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing code executable by one or more processors of a computing system, wherein the code, when executed, causes the computing system to perform operations comprising” and “from a client device” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions for executing/applying/running on some device which merely using generic computing equipment to execute/run the software tools to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). For the additional elements “receiving a user input…, wherein the user input specifies a value of the application variable” do nothing more than to add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering data for software tools. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include 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, the additional elements of “A non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing code executable by one or more processors of a computing system, wherein the code, when executed, causes the computing system to perform operations comprising” and “from a client device” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer and/or computer components to carry out the exception, thus, cannot amount to an inventive concept. See MPEP 2105.06(f). For the additional elements “receiving a user input from…, wherein the user input specifies a value of the application variable” the courts have recognized storing and receiving information in memory as a well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or an insignificant extra-solution activity (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
10. The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 9, wherein the user input is received via a user interface of the client device.
The limitations, the user input is received via a user interface for this claim further recite an additional insignificant extra solution activity under step 2A, Prong 2. For the limitation client device amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer and/or mere computer components to carry out the exception under Step 2A, Prong 2.
11. The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 9, wherein the application variable is obtained based on one or both of a historical preference of an organization to allow customization of a respective variable or machine learning.
The limitations for this claim further recite an additional insignificant extra solution activity under step 2A, Prong 2.
12. The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 9, wherein the code, when executed, causes the computing system to display a prompt for a user to input the value of the application variable.
The limitations for this claim further recite an additional insignificant extra solution activity under step 2A, Prong 2.
13. The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 9, wherein the application variable comprises a name for the application copy, one or more table names, one or more rule customizations, one or more table definitions or configurations, or one or more UI customizations.
The limitations for this claim further recite an additional mental process under Step 2A, Prong 1.
14. The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 9, wherein the base application comprises a model or generic application used to generate an application template including the application variable, and wherein the application template is configured to be used to generate a plurality of customized application copies.
The limitations, the base application comprises a model or generic application used, recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions for executing/applying/running some model to produce the application template which merely using generic computing equipment to execute/run the software tools to perform the abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong 2.
The limitations, to generate an application template including the application variable, and wherein the application template is configured to be used to generate a plurality of customized application copies further recite an additional mental process under Step 2A, Prong 1.
15. The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 9, wherein the application variable is included as part of an application template generated based on the base application.
The limitations for this claim further recite an additional mental process under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Claim 16, this claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directing to a system claim under Step 1.
16. A system, comprising:
processing circuitry; and
a memory, accessible by the processing circuitry, and storing instructions that, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform operations comprising:
creating or determining an application variable associated with an operational value of a base application;
receiving a user input from a client device, wherein the user input specifies a value of the application variable; and
generating an application copy of the base application using the value of the application variable.
Regarding claim 16, the limitations “creating or determining an application variable associated with an operational value of a base application,” and “generating an application copy of the base application using the value of the application variable” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. For example, a person is capable of using an application variable’s value with the aid of pen and paper for generating identical copy of a base application/program. Therefore, these limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2A, the additional elements “A system, comprising: processing circuitry; and a memory, accessible by the processing circuitry, and storing instructions that, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform operations comprising” and “from a client device” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions for executing/applying/running on some device which merely using generic computing equipment to execute/run the software tools to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). For the additional elements “receiving a user input…, wherein the user input specifies a value of the application variable” do nothing more than to add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering data for software tools. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include 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, the additional elements of “A system, comprising: processing circuitry; and a memory, accessible by the processing circuitry, and storing instructions that, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform operations comprising” and “from a client device” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer and/or computer components to carry out the exception, thus, cannot amount to an inventive concept. See MPEP 2105.06(f). For the additional elements “receiving a user input…, wherein the user input specifies a value of the application variable” the courts have recognized storing and receiving information in memory as a well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or an insignificant extra-solution activity (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
17. The system of claim 16, wherein the user input is received via a user interface of the client device.
The limitations, the user input is received via a user interface for this claim further recite an additional insignificant extra solution activity under step 2A, Prong 2. For the limitation client device amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer and/or mere computer components to carry out the exception under Step 2A, Prong 2.
18. The system of claim 16, wherein the application variable comprises a name for the application copy, one or more table names, one or more rule customizations, one or more table definitions or configurations, or one or more UI customizations.
The limitations for this claim further recite an additional mental process under Step 2A, Prong 1.
19. The system of claim 16, wherein the base application is associated with a plurality of potential application variables including the application variable.
The limitations for this claim further recite an additional mental process under Step 2A, Prong 1.
20. The system of claim 19, wherein the application variable is obtained instead of the other potential application variables based on organizational guidance or policies that specify the application variable or types of application variables that may be configured when generating an application copy.
The limitations for this claim further recite an additional insignificant extra solution activity under step 2A, Prong 2.
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) 1-13 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPN 20200097234 to Roberts et al.
Per Claim 1:
Roberts discloses:
1. A method, comprising;
creating or determining an application variable associated with an operational value (note here that Variable Print Product Data Fetching Module (228) queries backend databases or asset management systems for operational values (e.g., custom sizes, page counts, variable text strings, or client IDs) and then mapped to specific, predefined application variables, see Paragraph [0036] “a variable print product creation module 226, and a variable print product data fetching module 228 that the computing device 102-1 (or an application installed thereon such as print procurement application 224”) of a base application (Paragraph [0085] “administrative application (i.e., base application) is accessed by an administrator and allows the administrator to create/configure templates and individual template elements”);
receiving a user input from a client device, wherein the user input specifies a value of the application variable (note here that a user submit specific data through a user interface, which dynamically maps those inputs to variables within a design template to generate and render, see Paragraph [0036] “users are able to easily input data and provide values for elements that are then used to product and render the variable print products”); and
generating an application copy of the base application using the value of the application variable (Paragraph [0050-0051] “print procurement application 224 also includes… a variable print product creation module 226… create a new version of a variable print product using the provided value”); also see, Paragraph [0114] “copy an existing form configuration onto a new template by selecting it from the “Select existing configuration” drop-down”; (Paragraph [0085] “administrative application is accessed by an administrator and allows the administrator to create/configure templates and individual template elements”)).
Per Claim 2:
Roberts discloses:
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the user input is received via a user interface of the client device (Paragraph [0050] “displays the retrieved information in user interfaces that allow the users to, for example, provide values for form elements that are used to then render a new version of a variable print product”).
Per Claim 3:
Roberts discloses:
3. The method of claim 1, comprising:
causing display of a prompt for a user to input the value of the application variable (Paragraph [0050] “users are able to provide names and prices for various menu options, while creating a new version”).
Per Claim 4:
Roberts discloses:
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the application variable comprises a name for the application copy, one or more table names, one or more rule customizations, one or more table definitions or configurations, or one or more UI customizations (Since this appears to be MARKUSH type language requiring at a minimum just one from the list, Roberts teaches Paragraph [0061,0062] “one or more variable print product databases 108 for storing information… information about variable print product templates 322, such as element names, element types, options (e.g., that may be used to provide values for each element), input-acceptance rules (e.g., rules that are used to validate that an input provided for a particular element is acceptable or valid), access level requirements (e.g., defining which user types are able to view and/or edit different elements), and quick fill information (e.g., information that is used to auto-complete or quickly fill-in values for elements), and the like”).
Per Claim 5:
Roberts discloses:
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the application variable is included as part of an application template generated based on the base application (Paragraph [0040] “a variable print product templating and creation module 110… creates a template that allows individual franchise owners to create menus using the template”) based on the base application (Paragraph [0085] “administrative application (i.e., base application) is accessed by an administrator and allows the administrator to create/configure templates and individual template elements”).
Per Claim 6:
Roberts discloses:
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the base application is associated with a plurality of potential application variables including the application variable (Paragraph [0085, 0086] “administrator application includes a user interface 632… the user interface 632 may include a design elements region 640, a template variables region 642, a form variables region 644, a template custom labels region 646, an existing configuration selection region 648, and a form elements preview and configuration region 650”).
Per Claim 7:
Roberts discloses:
7. The method of claim 6, wherein the application variable is obtained instead of the other potential application variables based on one or more of a historical pattern or trend related to application variable selection or utilization for an organization (Paragraph [0069] “the data is stored in individual records (i.e., historical pattern) 410-1, 410-2, 410-3, through 410-N… a header field 410-0 is used to describe each field of information associated with each of the respective records”).[[’]]
Per Claim 8:
Roberts discloses:
8. The method of claim 6, wherein the application variable is obtained instead of the other potential application variables based on organizational guidance or policies that specify the application variable or types of application variables that may be configured (Paragraph [0069] “one or more variable print product templates data structures 322 (e.g., variable print product templates data structure 322-1, FIG. 4B) are used for storing information about variable print product templates associated with a particular client of the print procurement system 100… a value for a “template ID” field that uniquely identifies each variable print product template in a respective data structure 322”) when generating an application copy (Paragraph [0114] “copy an existing form configuration onto a new template by selecting it from the “Select existing configuration” drop-down”).
Claims 9-13 and 15 is/are the medium claim corresponding to method claims 1-2, 7 and 3-5 respectively, and rejected under the same rational set forth in connection with the rejection of claims 1-2, 7 and 3-5 respectively, as noted above.
Claims 16-20 is/are the medium claim corresponding to method claims 1-2, 4, 6 and 8 respectively, and rejected under the same rational set forth in connection with the rejection of claims 1-2, 4, 6 and 8 respectively, as noted above.
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) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 20200097234 to Roberts et al. in view of USPN 20090007054 to Voss.
Per Claim 14:
The rejection of claim 9 is incorporated and further Roberts does not explicitly disclose wherein the base application comprises a model or generic application used to generate an application template including the application variable, and wherein the application template is configured to be used to generate a plurality of customized application copies.
However, Voss discloses in an analogous computer system wherein the base application comprises a model or generic application used to generate an application template including the application variable (Paragraph [0040] “desktop application factory 102 is capable producing a whole class of similar applications based desktop application template 108…”), and wherein the application template is configured to be used to generate a plurality of customized application copies (Paragraph [0040] “many different desktop applications 112 can be generated from a single desktop application template 108”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the method of wherein the base application comprises a model or generic application used to generate an application template including the application variable, and wherein the application template is configured to be used to generate a plurality of customized application copies as taught by Voss into the method of creating template as taught by Roberts. The modification would be obvious because of one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to add/incorporate the features of wherein the base application comprises a model or generic application used to generate an application template including the application variable, and wherein the application template is configured to be used to generate a plurality of customized application copies to provide an efficient technique for generating multiple customized templates/applications to avoid the size and performance difficulties of configurable applications, while reducing the effort required to produce each individual application as suggested by Voss (paragraph [0005-0006]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Related cited arts:
Fylaktopoulos, George, et al. "An overview of platforms for cloud based development." SpringerPlus 5.1 (2016): 1-13.
Christensen, Jason H. "Using RESTful web-services and cloud computing to create next generation mobile applications." Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGPLAN conference companion on Object oriented programming systems languages and applications. 2009. pp. 627-633.
Buyya, Rajkumar, et al. "Intercloud: Utility-oriented federation of cloud computing environments for scaling of application services." International conference on algorithms and architectures for parallel processing. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2010.pp.1-19.
US20130212129 - A library of cloud templates for configuring cloud-based industrial solutions is provided. A cloud template provisioning system provides a platform for location and retrieval of a variety of cloud templates that facilitate configuration of cloud-based industrial applications, including control panel templates, dashboard templates, data historian templates, virtual machine management templates, and other such templates. The cloud templates can be installed and executed on a client device to provide an intuitive interface for configuring various aspects of the cloud-based solution.
US20150378708 - A system for adapting virtual computing resource (e.g., virtual machine) templates for use with new software platforms without modifying, or otherwise requiring recertification of, the template itself is disclosed. The system enables the installation of a software agent to be bootstrapped to the installation and execution of an agent already included in a template. Installation of the bootstrapped software agent may be performed automatically during initial provisioning of a virtual machine with little or no additional effort required from an administrator. Accordingly, embodiments of the disclosure enable preexisting templates to repurposed for use with new and/or more advanced cloud management platforms.
US20160212175 - A cloud infrastructure is enhanced to provide a context-based security assurance service to enable secure application deployment. The service inspects network and cloud topologies to identify potential security capabilities and needs. Preferably, these options are then surfaced to the user with easy-to-understand, pre-configured templates representing security assurance levels. When a template (e.g., representing a pre-configured assurance level) is selected by the user, the system then applies specific capabilities and controls to translate the user-selected generalized specification (e.g., “high security”) into granular requirements for a specific set of security resources. Preferably, the identification of these security resources is based on system configuration, administration, and information associated with the pre-configured template.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Satish Rampuria whose telephone number is 571-272-3732. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chat Do, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3721. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
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.
/Satish Rampuria/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193
*****
Prosecution Insights