DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
[1] The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice to Applicant
[2] This communication is in response to the amendment filed 2 March 2026. Claims 1, 10, and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
[3] Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As presented by amendment, claim 1 recites: “…a first machine learning model which receives the sparse matrix to output a first probability score indicating a likelihood of incident occurrence as a result of the request; and a second machine learning model to generate a second probability score indicating a likelihood of a major incident occurrence; wherein the second machine learning model is chained from the first machine learning model and receives the sparse matrix and the outputted first probability score from the first machine learning model as an input…”.
With respect to the “sparse matrix” the Specification as originally filed paragraph [0085] discloses generation of a high-dimensional sparse matrix for a first machine learning model (see “machine learning model 110”. Paragraphs [0087] and [0088] disclose that the machine learning model can be a “multi-classification” machine learning model having first and second components, i.e., the first and second machine learning models. Paragraph [0088] further specifies that the multi-classification format utilizes classifier chaining in which a first classifier output by the first model (model 110) is used as an input to the second model (model 560) to generate two probability score. While claim 1 as amended indicates that the sparse matrix is received by both the first and second models, the supportive disclosure appears to limit use of the sparse matrix to the first model (model 110). The sparse matrix isn’t received by the second model.
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement because the receipt of the sparse matrix by the second model constitutes subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 10 and 20, as presented by amendment, include the above noted features of claim 1 and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-19 inherit and fail to remedy the deficiencies of their respective parent claims through dependency and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
For purposes of further examination, Examiner assumes the second model used the classifier from the first model to generate the second probability. Examiner further assumes this function constitutes a generic classifier chaining process as indicated in paragraph [0088] of the Specification.
NOTE: For applicant’s benefit, clarification of the inputs to the second model and the particular combination of parallel operation of the decision tree and the two machine learning components of the chained classification model in which the classifier output is used an input to the second model to determine the second probability score to validate and/or adjust the decision tree subsystem determination could serve to assist in overcoming the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 101 as maintained below. Applicant is encouraged to contact Examiner to discuss amendments to this effect and potentially expedite prosecution of the instant application.
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.
[4] Previous rejection(s) of claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without significantly more, has/have not been overcome by the amendments to the subject claims and is/are maintained. The revised statement of rejection presented below is necessitated by amendment and addresses the present amendments to the pending claims.
The following analysis is based on the framework for determining patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 established in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. (See MPEP 2106 subsection III and 2106.03-2106.05) the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including Artificial Intelligence (2024 AI SME Update) published in the Federal Register, 17 July 2024 and further clarified in the Reminders on Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 guidance memorandum published 4 August 2025. Claim(s) 1-20 as a whole is/are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might serve to impede, rather than promote, innovation. Still, inventions that integrate the building blocks of human ingenuity into something more by applying the abstract idea in a meaningful way are patent eligible (See MPEP 2106.04).
Consistent with the findings of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. ineligible abstract ideas are defined in groups, namely: (1) Mathematical Concepts (e.g., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations; (2) Mental Processes (e.g., concepts performed or performable in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgements, or opinions); and (3) Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include three sub-categories within the group, namely: (1) fundamental economic principles or practices; (2) commercial or legal interactions (e.g., agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); (3) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Eligibility Step 1: Four Categories of Statutory Subject Matter (See MPEP 2106.03): Independent claims 1, 10, and 20 are directed to a method, a system, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and are reasonably understood to be properly directed to one of the four recognized statutory classes of invention designated by 35 U.S.C. 101; namely, a process or method, a machine or apparatus, an article of manufacture, or a composition of matter. While the claims, generally, are directed to recognized statutory classes of invention, each of method/process, system/apparatus claims, and computer-readable media/articles of manufacture are subject to additional analysis as defined by the Courts to determine whether the particularly claimed subject matter is patent-eligible with respect to these further requirements. In the case of the instant application, each of claims 1, 10, and 20 are determined to be directed to ineligible subject matter based on the following analysis/guidance:
Eligibility Step 2A prong 1: (See MPEP 2106.04): In reference to claim 1, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do/does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of determining a likelihood of risk associated with a request to access data and deciding whether to grant or deny access based on the likelihood, which is reasonably considered to be method of limited to claimed ineligible Mathematical Concepts (e.g., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations) and associated steps/processes performable by Human Mental Processing (e.g., concepts performed or performable in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgements, or opinions). In particular, the general subject matter to which the claims are directed illustrates a process in which mathematical processes and mental observation and judgement are applied to assess or evaluate a risk associated with an access request to an computing resource to facilitate a decision as to whether to grant of deny access to the resource, which is an ineligible inventive process limited to claimed mathematical calculations and human mental observations and evaluations.
The courts have previously identified subject matter limited to the implementation of Mathematical Concepts as ineligible abstract ideas (See at least Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 65, 175 USPQ2d 673, 674 (1972); and Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ2d 193, 195 (1978)). Further, the courts consider steps/processes performable by Human Mental Processing and/or by a human using pen and paper to be ineligible abstract ideas (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Further, mental processes or concepts performed in the human mind including observation and evaluation are considered to be ineligible abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for a recitation of generic computer components, then the claim is still to be grouped as a mental process unless the limitation cannot practically be performed in the human mind (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
With respect to functions/steps limited to Mathematical Concepts, representative claim 10 recites:
“…output a first probability score indicating a likelihood of incident occurrence as a result of the request …generate a second probability score indicating a likelihood of a major incident occurrence …generating a rebalanced training dataset by: randomly sampling the majority class until a ratio of minority to majority data points is between 0.5 to 1; and randomly sampling the minority class until the ratio of the minority to majority training data points is close to 1…”
With respect to functions/steps limited to processes performable by Human Mental Processing and/or by a human using pen and paper, representative claim 10 recites:
“…receiving a request for accessing or modifying an electronic resource, the request comprising a plurality of data fields including at least one unstructured text field; generating text meta field data from the at least one unstructured text field; providing the text meta feature data and categorical and numerical data fields as a sparse matrix …”
Respectfully, absent further clarification of the processing steps executed by the recited computer, processor, and/or model, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily be relied upon to organize data into a structure, e.g., a matrix and calculate a probability using static mathematical equations applied to the data using pen and paper. By extension, given a risk probability, one of ordinary skill would be capable of deciding whether to grant or deny access to computing resources employing by the human mental processing (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“a method that can be performed by human thought alone is merely an abstract idea and is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C 101).
Eligibility Step 2A prong 2: (See MPEP 2106.04(d)): Under step 2A prong two, Examiners are to consider additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception and evaluate whether those additional elements integrate the exception into a practical application. Further, to be considered a recitation of an element which integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements must apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes meaningful limits on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
As presented by amendment, additional elements of claim 10 that potentially integrate the claimed ineligible subject matter into a practical application of the claimed subject matter include: “computer”, “electronic resource”, “natural language processing” and “first machine learning model” and “second machine learning model”. Claim 10 further indicates, generally, that the claimed method is “computer-implemented” as designated in the preamble. Claims 1 and 20, directed to a system and computer readable medium storing machine interpretable instructions introduce a “processor” and processor-executable “instructions” as engaged in a general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions.
With respect to the above noted functions attributable to the identified additional elements, MPEP 2106.05 stipulates that: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f); Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g); and/or Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) serve as indications that the use of the technology recited does not indicate integration into a practical application of the judicial exception.
With respect to the identification of the “…trained machine learning model…”, Examiner notes the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including Artificial Intelligence (2024 AI SME Update) published in the Federal Register, 17 July 2024 and further clarified in the Reminders on Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 guidance memorandum published 4 August 2025. In consideration of the noted guidance and clarification, the recitation of mathematical processes or concepts utilized in the context of training and/or implementing a machine learning model constitute claimed ineligible mathematical concepts or processes. Additionally, Examiner respectfully directs Applicant’s attention to Example 47, claim 2. Specifically, the instant recitations of “using a trained machine learning model…” and “…using a second machine learning model…” to generate probabilities are analogous to the training of an artificial neural network based on input data and receiving continuous training data of Examiner 47. Reasonably, the training data and feedback data are limited to mere data gathering and generating an output at a high level of generality and, by extension, are reasonably understood to constitute insignificant extra solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The recited training process is limited to a recitation of the inputs and outputs to be applied to an undefined training process absent any technical specificity regarding actual training. Accordingly, the recited machine-learning processes and associated training are understood to be generic, commercially available, machine-learning models. As presented, the machine learning elements are limited to recitation of generic technical elements (e.g., models).
Each of the above noted limitations states a result (e.g., a request is received, text data is obtained, probabilities are determined, decisions whether to grant or deny access are made etc.) as associated with a respective “computer”, “processor” or “model”. Beyond the general statement that technical elements are engaged to generated the stated results, the limitations provide no further clarification with respect to the functions performed by the “computer”, “processor” or “model” in producing the claimed result. A recitation of “by a model” or “by a processor”, absent clarification of particular processing steps executed by the underlying technology to produce the result are reasonably understood to be an equivalent of “apply it”. The identified functions performed by the recited technology are limited to: (1) receiving and sending data via a computer network (e.g., access requests generating signals to grant or deny access); (2) storing and retrieving information and data from a generic computer memory (e.g., accessing stored information/resource); (3) displaying data on a generic computer display (e.g., decision to grant or deny access) and (4) performing repetitive calculations and/or mental observations using the obtaining information/data (e.g., calculating a score and deciding whether to grant or deny access) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, claim 10 is reasonably understood to be conducting standard, and formally manually performed process of determining a likelihood of risk associated with a request to access data and deciding whether to grant or deny access based on the likelihood using the generic devices as tools to perform the abstract idea. The identified functions of the recited additional elements reasonably constitute a general linking of the abstract idea to a generic technological environment. The claimed determining a likelihood of risk associated with a request to access data and deciding whether to grant or deny access based on the likelihood benefits from the inherent efficiencies gained by data transmission, data storage, and information display capacities of generic computing devices, but fails to present an additional element(s) which practical integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception.
Eligibility Step 2B: (See MPEP 2106.05): Analysis under step 2B is further subject to the Revised Examination Procedure responsive to the Subject Matter Eligibility Decision in Berkheimer v. HP, Inc. issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (19 April 2018). Examiner respectfully submits that the recited uses of the underlying computer technology constitute well-known, routine, and conventional uses of generic computers operating in a network environment. In support of Examiner’s conclusion that the recited functions/role of the computer as presented in the present form of the claims constitutes known and conventional uses of generic computing technology, Examiner provides the following:
In reference to the Specification as originally filed, Examiner notes paragraphs [0064]-[0068]. In the noted disclosure, the Specification provides listings of generic computing systems, e.g., a general computing platform including exemplary servers, network configurations and various processor configuration which are identified as capable and interchangeable for performing the disclosed processes. The disclosure does not identify any particular modifications to the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that this disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
While the above noted disclosure serves to provide sufficient explanation of technical elements required to perform the inventive method using available computing technology, the disclosure does not appear to identify any particular modifications or inventive configurations of the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that the disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Further, absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
The claims specify that the above identified generic computing structures and associated functions/routines include:
(1) The “computer”, “processor”, and “instructions” are identified as engaged in an unspecified, general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions.
(2) The “electronic resource” is identified as being subject to an access request.
(3) The “natural language processing” is identified as being applied to text data.
(4) The “machine learning model(s)” is/are identified as determining a probability score.
While Examiner acknowledges that the noted limitations are computer-implemented, Examiner respectfully submits that, in aggregate (e.g., “as a whole”) they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea/ineligible subject matter to which the claimed invention is primarily directed.
While utilizing a computer, the claimed invention is not rooted in computer technology nor does it improve the performance of the underlying computer technology. The computer-implemented features of the claimed invention noted above are reasonably limited to: (1) receiving and sending data via a computer network (e.g., access requests generating signals to grant or deny access); (2) storing and retrieving information and data from a generic computer memory (e.g., accessing stored information/resource); (3) displaying data on a generic computer display (e.g., decision to grant or deny access) and (4) performing repetitive calculations and/or mental observations using the obtaining information/data (e.g., calculating a score and deciding whether to grant or deny access).
The above listed computer-implemented functions are distinguished from the generic data storage, retrieval, transmission, and data manipulation/processing capacities of the generic systems identified in the Specification solely by the recited identification of particular data elements that are of utility to a user performing the specific method of determining a likelihood of risk associated with a request to access data and deciding whether to grant or deny access based on the likelihood. In summary, the computer of the instant invention is facilitating non-technical aims, i.e., determining a likelihood of risk associated with a request to access data and deciding whether to grant or deny access based on the likelihood, because it has been programmed to store, retrieve, and transmit specific data elements and/or instructions that is/are of utility to the user. The non-technical functions of determining a likelihood of risk associated with a request to access data and deciding whether to grant or deny access based on the likelihood benefit from the use of computer technology, but fail to improve the underlying technology.
In support, the courts have previously found that utilization of a computer to receive or transmit data and communications over a network and/or employing generic computer memory and processor capacities store and retrieve information from a computer memory are insufficient computer-implemented functions to establish that an otherwise unpatentable judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) is patent eligible. With respect to the determinations of the Courts regarding using a computer for sending and receiving data or information over a computer network and storing and retrieving information from computer memory, see at least: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; sending messages over a network OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); receiving and sending information over a network buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 and see performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199; and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) with respect to the performance of repetitive calculations does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claims.
Independent claims 1 and 20, directed to an apparatus/system and computer-executable instructions stored on computer-readable media for performing the method steps are rejected for substantially the same reasons, in that the generically recited computer components in the apparatus/system and computer readable media claims add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-19, when analyzed as a whole are held to be ineligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In accordance with all relevant considerations and aligned with previous findings of the courts, the technical elements imparted on the method that would potentially provide a basis for meeting a “significantly more” threshold for establishing patent eligibility for an otherwise abstract concept by the use of computer technology fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For further guidance and authority, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. 573 U.S.____ (2014)) (See MPEP 2106).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
[5] Previous rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0103589 hereinafter ‘Shen’) has/have been overcome by the amendments to the claims. Shen fails to disclose at least the rebalance and metadata generation of the sparse matrix to be applied to a chained classifier machine learning architecture to generate first and second risk probabilities.
Response to Remarks/Amendment
[6] Applicant's remarks filed 2 March 2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
[i] Applicant’s remarks in response to previous rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter as set forth in the previous Office Action mailed 2 October 2025 are reasonably considered to have been fully addressed in the context of the revised rejection of the claims presented above responsive to the amendments to the subject claims and in consideration of the framework for determining patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 established in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. (See MPEP 2106 subsection III and 2106.03-2106.05) and the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including Artificial Intelligence (2024 AI SME Update), published in the Federal Register, 17 July 2024.
[ii] Applicant’s remarks directed to previous rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as set forth in the previous Office Action mailed 2 October 2025 have been fully considered and are convincing in light of the present amendments to the pending claims. The previous rejection of pending claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 has/have been overcome by the amendments to the pending claims and is/are withdrawn.
Conclusion
[7] Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ROBERT D RINES whose telephone number is (571)272-5585. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, Beth V Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737. 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.
/ROBERT D RINES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights