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 .
This Office Action is in response to the communications for the present US application number 18/799,218 last filed on August 09th, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined, directed to DATA COMMUNICATION SYSTEM TO SELECTIVELY AND SECURELY COUPLE DISTRIBUTED LEDGERS WITH ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) ENGINES.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use 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.
For example, in independent claim 15, directed to a network comprises components like:
“…a wireless access node…” that’s configured to receive and transmit data
“…a network slice or AI engine…” that’s configured to receive and also generate some output data.
So, these two components are tasked with some function and also not tied to any sufficient structure. And because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the filed Specifications describes other components that are not currently claimed, including various circuitry that corresponds to the various components within this “system” or wireless network of components. The currently claimed two or more component can be implemented via software means at the moment.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations like:
“…a wireless access node…” to wirelessly receive…or to transfer…user data…
“…the AI engine…” to receive data… or …to generate data/output.
invokes 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.
A review of the filed Specifications describes other components that are not currently claimed, including various circuitry that corresponds to the various components within this “system” or wireless network of components. The currently claimed two or more component can be implemented via software means at the moment.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2017/0142591 A1 to Vrzic et al. (referred to hereafter as “Vrzic”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2019/0387000 A1 to Zavesky et al. (referred to hereafter as “Zavesky”).
As to claim 1, Vrzic further discloses a method comprising:
wirelessly receiving a slice indicator from a wireless communication device (Vrzic discloses of an overall architecture that allows for network function virtualization (NFV) which would support wireless networks and network slicing and virtual network functions (VNFs). The system can receive/accept wireless requests from a UE, and then determine an appropriate network slice depending on the request, e.g., Vrzic: ¶¶ 35, 38-39, 43-44, and 86);
selecting an Artificial Intelligence (AI) engine based on the slice indicator (Vrzic does not expressly discloses about utilizing AI implementations to handle slice selections.
Zavesky more expressly discloses of a similar system in the same field of endeavor that can further incorporate and utilize AI, which can be implemented as a function or a component/device within a larger system (e.g., Zavesky: ¶¶ 37, 39, and 133).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present application, to combine and incorporate Zavesky’s teachings with using AI within Vrzic’s overall system and teachings as the resulting combined system would be more readily capable with AI implemented to handle the various UE/client requests);
wirelessly receiving user data from the wireless communication device (Following the above steps and interpretations, Vrzic already discloses that the UE’s request is received by the system. In addition, the details within the request or the “user data” would of course also be received by the system, as Vrzic discloses about UE related details or data within other examples, e.g., Vrzic: ¶¶ 38-39, 43-44, 86, and 100); and
transferring the user data to the selected AI engine (Following the above steps and interpretations, and along with the incorporation of Zavesky’s teachings about using AI within the system, the overall system now can thus send/transfer the user request with all of the user data altogether to the AI component/function/device for it to be handled, (e.g., Zavesky: ¶¶ 37, 39, and 133).
See the previously stated reasons for combining and incorporating Zavesky’s teachings within Vrzic’s overall system and teachings).
As to claim 2, Vrzic does not fully further disclose of the method of claim 1 wherein selecting the AI engine based on the slice indicator comprises selecting the AI engine based on the slice indicator and a Network Function Virtualization Forwarding Graph (NFV FG) (Following claim 1, Vrzic discloses of the use of NFV forwarding graphs and forwarding paths, (e.g., Vrzic: ¶ 46).
And while Vrzic does not expressly discloses about implementing AI solutions, Zavesky more expressly discloses of how AI can be implemented, as a function or a component/device within a larger system (e.g., Zavesky: ¶¶ 37, 39, and 133), such that the indicators and the forwarding graphs can help identify an appropriate AI implemented system.
See the previously stated reasons for combining and incorporating Zavesky’s teachings within Vrzic’s overall system and teachings).
As to claim 3, Vrzic does not fully further disclose of the method of claim 1 wherein selecting the AI engine based on the slice indicator comprises selecting the AI engine based on the slice indicator and a Network Function Virtualization Service Descriptor (NFV SD) (Following claim 1, Vrzic discloses of the use of service descriptors (e.g., Vrzic: ¶ 46).
And while Vrzic does not expressly discloses about implementing AI solutions, Zavesky more expressly discloses of how AI can be implemented, as a function or a component/device within a larger system (e.g., Zavesky: ¶¶ 37, 39, and 133), such that the indicators and the descriptors can help identify an appropriate AI implemented system.
See the previously stated reasons for combining and incorporating Zavesky’s teachings within Vrzic’s overall system and teachings).
As to claim 4, Vrzic does not fully further disclose of the method of claim 1 wherein transferring the user data to the selected AI engine comprises transferring the user data to the selected AI engine based on a Network Function Virtualization Forwarding Graph (NFV FG) (Following claim 1, Vrzic discloses of the use of NFV forwarding graphs and forwarding paths and also discloses of sending along other types of user related data within the request, (e.g., Vrzic: ¶¶ 43-44, 46, 86, and 100).
And while Vrzic does not expressly discloses about implementing AI solutions, Zavesky more expressly discloses of how AI can be implemented, as a function or a component/device within a larger system (e.g., Zavesky: ¶¶ 37, 39, and 133), such that the forwarding graphs can help identify an appropriate AI implemented system.
See the previously stated reasons for combining and incorporating Zavesky’s teachings within Vrzic’s overall system and teachings).
As to claim 5, Vrzic does not fully further disclose of the method of claim 1 wherein transferring the user data to the selected AI engine comprises transferring the user data to the selected AI engine based on a Network Function Virtualization Service Descriptor (NFV SD) (Following claim 1, Vrzic discloses of the use of service descriptors and also discloses of sending along other types of user related data within the request, (e.g., Vrzic: ¶¶ 43-44, 46, 86, and 100).
And while Vrzic does not expressly discloses about implementing AI solutions, Zavesky more expressly discloses of how AI can be implemented, as a function or a component/device within a larger system (e.g., Zavesky: ¶¶ 37, 39, and 133), such that the service descriptors can help identify an appropriate AI implemented system.
See the previously stated reasons for combining and incorporating Zavesky’s teachings within Vrzic’s overall system and teachings).
As to claim 6, Vrzic does not fully further disclose of the method of claim 1 wherein:
selecting the AI engine based on the slice indicator comprises selecting the AI engine in another wireless communication device (Following claim 1, while Vrzic does not expressly discloses about the AI implementations, Zavesky more expressly discloses how AI can be implemented, as a function or a component/device within a larger system (e.g., Zavesky: ¶¶ 37, 39, and 133)); and
transferring the user data to the selected AI engine comprises transferring the user data to the selected AI engine in the other wireless communication device (Following the above step(s) and interpretations, and with the incorporation of the AI device/system from Zavesky’s teachings, Vrzic discloses of the system being able to receive the other types of user related data within the request (e.g., Vrzic: ¶¶ 43-44, 46, 86, and 100), all of which can then be passed onto the identified AI device/system).
See the previously stated reasons for combining and incorporating Zavesky’s teachings within Vrzic’s overall system and teachings).
As to claim 7, Vrzic does not fully further disclose of the method of claim 1 wherein:
wirelessly receiving user data from the wireless communication device comprises wirelessly receiving the user data over a Radio Access Network (RAN) (e.g., Vrzic: ¶¶ 33, 86, 100, and 135);
selecting the AI engine based on the slice indicator comprises selecting the AI engine in the RAN (While Vrzic does not expressly discloses about the AI implementations, Zavesky more expressly discloses how AI can be implemented, as a function or a component/device within a larger system (e.g., Zavesky: ¶¶ 37, 39, and 133)); and
transferring the user data to the selected AI engine comprises transferring the user data to the selected AI engine in the RAN (Following the above step(s) and interpretations, and with the incorporation of the AI device/system from Zavesky’s teachings, Vrzic discloses of the system being able to receive the other types of user related data within the request (e.g., Vrzic: ¶¶ 43-44, 46, 86, and 100), all of which can then be passed onto the identified AI device/system).
See the previously stated reasons for combining and incorporating Zavesky’s teachings within Vrzic’s overall system and teachings).
As to claim 8, Vrzic does not fully further disclose of the method of claim 1 wherein:
wirelessly receiving the user data from the wireless communication device comprises wirelessly receiving status data for the wireless communication device (Vrzic discloses of the system receiving user related data, which are all related to the “status” of the UE’s device, wirelessly from the UE that’s making the request, e.g., Vrzic: ¶¶ 32, 86, and 100); and
transferring the user data to the selected AI engine comprises transferring the status data for the wireless communication device to the selected AI engine (Following the above step(s) and interpretations, while Vrzic does not expressly disclose about the AI implementations, Zavesky more expressly discloses how AI can be implemented, as a function or a component/device within a larger system (e.g., Zavesky: ¶¶ 37, 39, and 133). And with Zavesky’s incorporated teachings, the overall system can thus wirelessly communicate and send the user related “status” data to the identified AI device/system).
See the previously stated reasons for combining and incorporating Zavesky’s teachings within Vrzic’s overall system and teachings).
As to claim 9, Vrzic does not fully further disclose of the method of claim 1 wherein:
wirelessly receiving user data from the wireless communication device comprises wirelessly receiving the status data for a Radio Access Network (RAN) (Vrzic discloses of the system receiving user related data, which are all related to the “status” of the UE’s device, wirelessly from the UE that’s making the request, e.g., Vrzic: ¶¶ 32, 86, and 100); and
transferring the user data to the selected AI engine comprises transferring the status data for the RAN to the selected AI engine (Following the above step(s) and interpretations, while Vrzic does not expressly disclose about the AI implementations, Zavesky more expressly discloses how AI can be implemented, as a function or a component/device within a larger system (e.g., Zavesky: ¶¶ 37, 39, and 133). And with Zavesky’s incorporated teachings, the overall system can thus wirelessly communicate and send the user related “status” data to the identified AI device/system).
See the previously stated reasons for combining and incorporating Zavesky’s teachings within Vrzic’s overall system and teachings).
As to claim 10, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 11, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 4.
As to claim 12, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 5.
As to claim 13, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 8.
As to claim 14, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 9.
As to claim 15, Vrzic discloses a wireless communication network comprising:
a wireless network slice comprising an Artificial Intelligence (AI) engine (While Vrzic discloses of NFV and wireless communications to network slices, Vrzic does not expressly further disclose of the AI implementations.
Zavesky more expressly discloses of how AI can be implemented, as a function or a component/device within a larger system (e.g., Zavesky: ¶¶ 37, 39, and 133));
a wireless access node to wirelessly receive user data from a wireless communication device for the wireless network slice (The system has wireless access nodes or ANs that facilitate how UEs can connect/communicate, e.g., Vrzic: ¶¶ 39, 65, 67, and 91 and Figs. 5 and 12);
the wireless access node to transfer the user data to the wireless network slice (The access node facilitates and passes along the UE request(s) with all of their user specific data, as part of the whole overall process that gets the data to the determined/selected network slice, e.g., Vrzic: ¶¶ 67, 91-92 and Figs. 5 and 12);
the wireless network slice to receive the user data from the wireless access node (Following the above steps and interpretations, this is stating the same concept that the user specific data is passed onto, from the UE to the AN and then onwards to the determined/identified network slice that’s handling the UE request, e.g., Vrzic: ¶¶ 43-44, 46, 86, and 100);
the wireless network slice to transfer the user data to the AI engine (Following the above steps and interpretations, Vrzic discloses that the system would pass along the request with the user related data within the request, to the determined network slice (e.g., Vrzic: ¶¶ 43-44, 46, 67, 86, 91-92, and 100).
And in this case, while Vrzic does not expressly disclose of about the AI implementations, it’s already been established above in the earlier steps that Zavesky’s incorporated teachings of AI would be already incorporated within the destination or target network slice, as the user related data associated with the UE request is passed along to this AI implemented network slice, (Zavesky: ¶¶ 37, 39, and 133));
the AI engine to receive the user data (Following the above steps and interpretations, while Vrzic does not expressly disclose about the AI implementations, Zavesky more expressly discloses of AI can be implemented, as a function or a component/device within a larger system, such as the determined network slice that’s handling the UE request(s) (e.g., Zavesky: ¶¶ 37, 39, and 133)); and
the AI engine to generate an AI output based on the user data (Following the above steps and interpretations, while Vrzic does not expressly disclose about the AI implementations, Zavesky more expressly discloses of AI can be implemented as a function or a component/device within a larger system, such as the determined network slice, in order to process and respond to the UE request(s), (e.g., Zavesky: ¶¶ 37, 39, and 133).
See the previously stated reasons for combining and incorporating Zavesky’s teachings within Vrzic’s overall system and teachings).
As to claim 16, Vrzic does not fully further disclose of the wireless communication network of claim 15 wherein the wireless communication device comprises a sensor and the user data comprises sensor output (Following claim 15, Vrzic does not clearly disclose of an embodiment related to sensors and sensor data output.
Zavesky more expressly discloses of various embodiments including IoT devices and sensors (e.g., Zavesky: ¶ 38) which can have sensor data, and wherein the sensors can behave in a similar manner to UEs and get processed by the overall system with AI implementations.
See the previously stated reasons for combining and incorporating Zavesky’s teachings within Vrzic’s overall system and teachings).
As to claim 19, Vrzic does not fully further disclose of the wireless communication network of claim 15 wherein the wireless communication device comprises a camera and the user data comprises at least one of video data and image data (Following claim 15, Vrzic does not expressly disclose of any embodiments related to specifically cameras and the related video and image data that’s captured/produced.
Zavesky more expressly discloses of an embodiment with a system that can handle video, which would contain both video and image data (e.g., Zavesky: ¶ 35, 40, 45, 50, and 86).
See the previously stated reasons for combining and incorporating Zavesky’s teachings within Vrzic’s overall system and teachings).
Claims 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2017/0142591 A1 to Vrzic in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2019/0387000 A1 to Zavesky and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2021/0136653 A1 to Zhang et al. (referred to hereafter as “Zhang”).
As to claim 17, Vrzic does not fully further disclose of the wireless communication network of claim 15 wherein the wireless communication device comprises an atmospheric sensor and the user data comprises environmental data (Following claim 15, both Vrzic and Zavesky do not expressly disclose of the specific type of atmospheric sensors and dealing with captured environmental data.
Zhang more expressly discloses of an embodiment that encompasses sensors that can collect and gather environmental and/or atmospheric data (e.g., Zhang: ¶ 100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present application, to combine and incorporate Zhang’s teachings of a specific type of sensor within this particular field, which can also overlap with Zavesky’s teachings of sensors (e.g., Zavesky: ¶ 38), and altogether within Vrzic’s overall system and teachings, because this application of analyzing environmental/atmospheric data can be beneficial on a larger scale.
As to claim 18, Vrzic does not fully further disclose of the wireless communication network of claim 15 wherein the wireless communication device comprises a weather sensor and the user data comprises weather data (Following claim 15 and similar to claim 17, both Vrzic and Zavesky do not expressly disclose of the specific type of weather sensors and dealing with captured weather data.
Zhang more expressly discloses of an obvious similar embodiment as sensors that can collect and gather environmental and/or atmospheric data would be interpreted as changes in weather or weather data (e.g., Zhang: ¶ 100).
See the previously stated reasons for combining and incorporating Zhang’s teachings within Vrzic’s overall system and teachings).
As to claim 20, Vrzic does not fully further disclose of the wireless communication network of claim 15 wherein the wireless network slice comprises a massive Machine Type Communication (mMTC) network slice (Following claim 15, both Vrzic and Zavesky do not expressly disclose of an mMTC network slice type.
Zhang more expressly discloses of being able to utilize an mMTC network slice type (e.g., Zhang: ¶¶ 72 and 87), which can be easily incorporated as an identified network slice type within a larger overall system, that’s capable of handling the UE’s request(s).
See the previously stated reasons for combining and incorporating Zhang’s teachings within Vrzic’s overall system and teachings).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Xiang Yu whose telephone number is (571)270-5695. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-3:00 (PST/PDT).
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at (571)272-3865. 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.
/Xiang Yu/Examiner, Art Unit 2455