DETAILED ACTION
This non-final Office action is responsive to amendments filed May 11th, 2026. Claims 3 and 18 have been cancelled. Claims 1-2, 4, 11-12, 14-15, 16-17, 19, 26-27, and 29-30 are presented for examination.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/11/26 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/12/26 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding claim rejections under 35 USC 101 filed 05/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 9-12 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that the amended claims present statutory subject matter. Beginning on page 10 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea. Specifically, Applicant argues “the claims do not recite a mental process because they do not recite performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components.” Examiner begins by asserting that while Applicant states that the claims “do not recite performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components”, per the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, “The courts have found claims requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind.” Regarding the argued limitations, Examiner asserts that under broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification, the limitations regarding triggering recomputation of the stateful metric and performing it by generating a directed acyclic graph (DAG) data structure corresponding to the updated visual representation of the stateful metric including the addition of the visual representation of the timeline operator, are functions of the human mind in the form of observation, judgement, evaluation, and opinions. The generic computer components (i.e., user interface frontend to backend) are merely used as a tool to perform these concepts. Further, the high-level recitation of the “translation of the updated visual representation of the stateful metric that is being visually composed” under broadest reasonable interpretation is a judgement of the human mind. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Continuing on pages 10-12 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues regarding Step 2A Prong Two analysis that “the claims are directed to an improvement to the technology of visual programming”. Citing various limitations within the independent claims as well as Paragraphs [0342] and [0508] of the as-filed Specification, Applicant continues on page 11 of the provided remarks to reiterate the above argument. Examiner respectfully disagrees and begins by asserting that while both Specification paragraphs refer to the improved efficiency and ease created by the claimed system, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Additionally, while paragraph [0508] argues the present system “supports stateful data explorations, rapid prototyping of stateful metrics, validation of stateful metrics, etc.” the argued “exploration, prototyping, and validation” occurring as presentation utilizing a graphical user interface are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components and regular office supplies) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computers and other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology (See PEG 2019). Additionally, while paragraph [0342] asserts “the interactive composition interface described herein provides interactive, real-time feedback as a user constructs or develops a stateful metric”, as stated above, the argued feedback regarding the translation of the updated visual representation and the generation of a directed acyclic graph (DAG) are directed to the abstract idea of mental process. Per MPEP 2106.05(a)(II), ‘Improvements to Any Other Technology or Technical Field’ examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include, “iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48”. Examiner asserts that the argued feedback regarding the creation of the stateful metric is analogous to the above cited example. Therefore, the 35 USC 101 is maintained. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
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 1-2, 4, 11-12, 14-15, 16-17, 19, 26-27, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter;
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 1: Independent claims 1 (system), 16 (method), and dependent claims 2, 4, 11-12, 14-15, 17, 19, 26-27, and 29-30, respectively, fall within at least one of the four statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 101: (i) process; (ii) machine; (iii) manufacture; or (iv) composition of matter. Claim 1 is directed to a system (i.e. machine) and claim 16 is directed to a method (i.e. process).
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claims recite a stateful metrics visual composition system, comprising: one or more processors configured to: provide, via a user interface frontend, a graphical user interface; receive, via the graphical user interface, an indication of an input data set; detect, via the user interface frontend, an update to a visual representation of a stateful metric that is being visually composed via the graphical user interface, wherein the stateful metric is represented in the graphical user interface via a connected plurality of visual representations of timeline operators, and wherein the update to the visual representation of the stateful metric detected via the user interface frontend comprises addition of a visual representation of a timeline operator to the visual representation of the stateful metric that is being visually composed via dragging and dropping of the visual representation of the timeline operator in the graphical user interface; in response to detecting, via the user interface frontend, the update to the visual representation of the stateful metric composing addition of the visual representation of the timeline operator to the visual representation of the stateful metric, provide visual feedback associated with the addition of the timeline operator, wherein providing the visual feedback in response the detecting the update to the visual representation of the stateful metric comprises: triggering recomputation of the stateful metric at least in part by sending a request from the user interface frontend to a backend, wherein the sending comprises translating the updated visual representation of the stateful metric that is being visually composed into a configuration file that is executable by the backend, and wherein responsive to the request, the backend performs the recomputation at least in part by generating a directed acyclic graph (DAG) data structure corresponding to the updated visual representation of the stateful metric including the addition of the visual representation of the timeline operator; receiving, from the backend, an output timeline associated with the added timeline operator that is determined based at least in part on the recomputation performed by the backend; and generating a visualization of the output timeline associated with the added timeline operator at least in part by translating the output timeline into a visually compatible format that is presentable via the user interface frontend; in response to hovering over the visual representation of the timeline operator, provide, via the graphical user interface, a tooltip animation that visualizes progression over time of applying the timeline operator to an input timeline, including presenting a value recorded at an intermediate time in the output timeline received from the backend, and wherein the tooltip animation repeats upon reaching an end of the output timeline; in response to receiving, via the graphical user interface, an indication of an interaction with an output connector of the visual representation of the timeline operator, automatically suggest and present, via the graphical user interface, at least one next timeline operator as a candidate operator to connect to the timeline operator based at least in part on compatibility of an input type of the suggested next timeline operator and an output type of the timeline operator; and a memory coupled to the one or more processors and configured to provide the one or processors with instructions (Mental Process), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05). [Examiner notes the underlined limitations above recite the abstract idea].
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Mental Process because the claimed limitations are detecting an update to a visual representation of a stateful metric; providing feedback in response to detecting the update to the visual representation of the stateful metric; triggering recomputation of the stateful metric comprising generating a directed acyclic graph (DAG) data structure corresponding to the updated visual representation of the stateful metric including the additional of the visual representation of the timeline operator; generating a visualization of the output timeline associated with the added timeline operator; and suggesting at least one next timeline operator as a candidate operator based on compatibility of input type, which are functions of the human mind in the form of observation, judgment, and evaluation. Additionally, the generation of a visualization could be performed utilizing pen & paper. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are detecting updates to a visual representation of a stateful metric; providing feedback based on a receiving indication of user interaction with a visual representation of the timeline operator; generating a visualization of the output timeline; and suggesting a next timeline operator based on compatibility, which recite the abstract idea of Mental Process.
In addition, dependent claims 4, 11-12, 15, 19, 26-27, and 30 further narrow the abstract idea and recite further defining the feedback of output of applying a transformation prescribed by the timeline operator; detecting incompatibility between a next timeline operator whose visual representation is connected to the visual representation of the timeline operator; and selection of the timeline operator. These processes are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further the limitations of the independent claims which recite mental processes. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they are directed to abstract ideas. Dependent claims 2, 14, 17, and 29 will be discussed in Prong 2 analysis below.
Step 2A Prong 2: In this application, even if not directed toward the abstract idea, the above “provide, via a user interface frontend, a graphical user interface; receive, via the graphical user interface, an indication of an input data set; provide visual feedback with the addition of the timeline operator; triggering recomputation of the stateful metric at least in part by sending a request from the user interface frontend to a backend; receiving an output timeline associated with the added timeline operator that is determined based at least in part on the recomputation performed by the backend; in response to hovering over the visual representation of the timeline operator, provide, via the graphical user interface, a tooltip animation that visualizes progression over time of applying the timeline operator to an input timeline, including presenting a value recorded at an intermediate time in the output timeline received from the backend, and wherein the tooltip animation repeats upon reaching an end of the output timeline; present, via the graphical user interface, at least one next timeline operator as a candidate operator to connect to the timeline operator based at least in part on compatibility of an input type of the suggested next timeline operator and an output type of the timeline operator; provide the one or processors with instructions” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception. Also, the claimed “A stateful metrics visual composition system, comprising: one or more processors; a user interface frontend; a graphical user interface; backend; a memory coupled to the one or more processors and configured to provide the one or processors with instructions” would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
Independent claims 1 and 16 recite “wherein the update to the visual representation of the stateful metric detected via the user interface frontend comprises addition of a visual representation of a timeline operator to the visual representation of the stateful metric that is being visually composed via dragging and dropping of the visual representation of the timeline operator in the graphical user interface”. The steps/functions of the dependent claims would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g., abstract idea) into a practical application because the construction of the metric utilizing “dragging and dropping” are recited at a high level of generality such that it presents insignificant extra-solution activity and merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception. Additionally, the claimed “graphical user interface” would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
Independent claims 1 and 16 recites “wherein the sending comprises translating the updated visual representation of the stateful metric that is being visually composed into a configuration file that is executable by the backend” and “at least in part by translating the output timeline into a visually compatible format that is presentable via the user interface frontend”. The steps/functions of the dependent claims would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g., abstract idea) into a practical application because the transformation of an input into an output timeline representation are recited at a high level of generality such that it presents insignificant extra-solution activity and merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception.
In addition, dependent claims 4, 11-12, 15, 19, 26-27, and 30 further narrow the abstract idea and dependent claims 2, 4, 14, 17, 19, and 29 additionally recite “the visual representation of the timeline operator is included as a node in a graph representation of the stateful metric that is being visually composed”; “the visual feedback comprises a representation of output of applying a transformation prescribed by the timeline operator”; which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and the claimed “stateful metrics visual composition system, comprising: one or more processors” and “graphical user interface” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
Dependent claims 14 and 29 recites “wherein the graphical user interface comprises a node-graph editor”. The claimed “graphical user interface” and “node-graph editor” would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
The claimed “A stateful metrics visual composition system, comprising: one or more processors; a user interface frontend; a graphical user interface; backend; a memory coupled to the one or more processors and configured to provide the one or processors with instructions” are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components and regular office supplies) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computers and other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology (See PEG 2019).
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05 and PEG 2019). Further, method claims 16-17, 19, 26-27, and 29-30; and system claims 1-2, 4, 11-12, and 14-15 recite “A stateful metrics visual composition system, comprising: one or more processors; a user interface frontend; a graphical user interface; backend; user interface frontend; a memory coupled to the one or more processors and configured to provide the one or processors with instructions”; however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraph 0048 and Figure 26A. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Also, the above “provide, via a user interface frontend, a graphical user interface; receive, via the graphical user interface, an indication of an input data set; provide visual feedback with the addition of the timeline operator; triggering recomputation of the stateful metric at least in part by sending a request from the user interface frontend to a backend; receiving an output timeline associated with the added timeline operator that is determined based at least in part on the recomputation performed by the backend; in response to hovering over the visual representation of the timeline operator, provide, via the graphical user interface, a tooltip animation that visualizes progression over time of applying the timeline operator to an input timeline, including presenting a value recorded at an intermediate time in the output timeline received from the backend, and wherein the tooltip animation repeats upon reaching an end of the output timeline; present, via the graphical user interface, at least one next timeline operator as a candidate operator to connect to the timeline operator based at least in part on compatibility of an input type of the suggested next timeline operator and an output type of the timeline operator; provide the one or processors with instructions” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art. When 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.
Independent claims 1 and 16 recite “wherein the update to the visual representation of the stateful metric detected via the user interface frontend comprises addition of a visual representation of a timeline operator to the visual representation of the stateful metric that is being visually composed via dragging and dropping of the visual representation of the timeline operator in the graphical user interface”. When the “dragging and dropping” is evaluated as an additional element, this feature is recited at a high level of generality and encompasses well-understood, routine, and conventional prior art activity. See Varpela et al. U.S2005/0021877 A1 noting in paragraph [0240] “In conventional graphical user interfaces, the drag and drop technique works such that if a user drags an icon of a disk file on top of a software tool's icon, the operating system interprets this user input as an instruction to open the specified disk file with the specified software tool”. When 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. The claimed “graphical user interface” do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claimed structure merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.05).
Independent claims 1 and 16 recites “wherein the sending comprises translating the updated visual representation of the stateful metric that is being visually composed into a configuration file that is executable by the backend” and “at least in part by translating the output timeline into a visually compatible format that is presentable via the user interface frontend”. Per MPEP 2106.05(c) ‘Particular Transformation’ the following is stated, “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two and whether a claim recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the claim effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.” The following factors regarding the transformation need be considered, including, “The degree to which the recited article is particular. A transformation applied to a generically recited article or to any and all articles would likely not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. A transformation that can be specifically identified, or that applies to only particular articles, is more likely to provide significantly more (or integrates a judicial exception into a practical application).” Within the present independent & dependent claims noted above, the translation of the stateful metric into a configuration file and the output time into a visually compatible format is generically recited and therefore would not provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
In addition, claims 4, 11-12, 15, 19, 26-27, and 30 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims merely further define the data being analyzed and how the data is being analyzed. Similarly, claims 2, 4, 14, 17, 19, and 29 additionally recite “the visual representation of the timeline operator is included as a node in a graph representation of the stateful metric that is being visually composed”; “the visual feedback comprises a representation of output of applying a transformation prescribed by the timeline operator”; which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art and the claimed “stateful metrics visual composition system, comprising: one or more processors” and “graphical user interface” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claimed structure merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.05).
Dependent claims 14 and 29 recites “wherein the graphical user interface comprises a node-graph editor”. The claimed “graphical user interface” and “node-graph editor” do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claimed structure merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.05).
The additional limitations of the independent and dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner has considered the dependent claims in a full analysis including the additional limitations individually and in combination as analyzed in the independent claim(s). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4, 11-12, 14-15, 16-17, 19, 26-27, and 29-30 are allowable over the prior art. In particular, the prior art of record does not teach or render obvious the combination of limitations directed to: detect, via the user interface frontend, an update to a visual representation of a stateful metric that is being visually composed via the graphical user interface, wherein the stateful metric is represented in the graphical user interface via a connected plurality of visual representations of timeline operators, and wherein the update to the visual representation of the stateful metric detected via the user interface frontend comprises addition of a visual representation of a timeline operator to the visual representation of the stateful metric that is being visually composed via dragging and dropping of the visual representation of the timeline operator in the graphical user interface; in response to detecting, via the user interface frontend, the update to the visual representation of the stateful metric composing addition of the visual representation of the timeline operator to the visual representation of the stateful metric, provide visual feedback associated with the addition of the timeline operator, wherein providing the visual feedback in response the detecting the update to the visual representation of the stateful metric comprises: triggering recomputation of the stateful metric at least in part by sending a request from the user interface frontend to a backend, wherein the sending comprises translating the updated visual representation of the stateful metric that is being visually composed into a configuration file that is executable by the backend, and wherein responsive to the request, the backend performs the recomputation at least in part by generating a directed acyclic graph (DAG) data structure corresponding to the updated visual representation of the stateful metric including the addition of the visual representation of the timeline operator; receiving, from the backend, an output timeline associated with the added timeline operator that is determined based at least in part on the recomputation performed by the backend; and generating a visualization of the output timeline associated with the added timeline operator at least in part by translating the output timeline into a visually compatible format that is presentable via the user interface frontend; in response to hovering over the visual representation of the timeline operator, provide, via the graphical user interface, a tooltip animation that visualizes progression over time of applying the timeline operator to an input timeline, including presenting a value recorded at an intermediate time in the output timeline received from the backend, and wherein the tooltip animation repeats upon reaching an end of the output timeline; in response to receiving, via the graphical user interface, an indication of an interaction with an output connector of the visual representation of the timeline operator, automatically suggest and present, via the graphical user interface, at least one next timeline operator as a candidate operator to connect to the timeline operator based at least in part on compatibility of an input type of the suggested next timeline operator and an output type of the timeline operator, as recited and arranged in combination with the other limitations required by the method of independent claim 1 and as similarly encompassed by the method of independent claim 16, respectively, thereby rendering claims 1-2, 4, 11-12, 14-15, 16-17, 19, 26-27, and 29-30 as allowable over the prior art. Claims 1-2, 4, 11-12, 14-15, 16-17, 19, 26-27, and 29-30 are not allowed because they stand rejected under 35 USC 101 as discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Carbone, Paris, et al. "State management in Apache Flink®: consistent stateful distributed stream processing." Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 10.12 (2017): 1718-1729.
DOCUMENT ID
INVENTOR(S)
TITLE
US 2021/0390013 A1
Melanchenko et al.
Alerting system having a network of stateful transformation nodes
US 2011/0004631 A1
Inokuchi et al.
FREQUENT CHANGING PATTERN EXTRACTION DEVICE
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTIN ELIZABETH GAVIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7019. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 PM EST.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at 571-272-6787. 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.
/KRISTIN E GAVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights