Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
In the Amendment dated 05 February 2026, the following occurred:
Claims 1, 14, and 20 were amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(I). The following figures are unsatisfactory for reproduction because they contain text that is smaller than the permissible limit of 1/8”:
Fig. 2D
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claims recite a method, apparatus, device, and storage medium for information interaction, and therefore meet step 1 (or are assumed to for subject matter eligibility analysis purposes).
Step 2A1
The limitations of (Claim 1 being representative) in response to detecting… a consultation initiation operation, providing an interaction […location…] between a user and a […consultant…] for health consultation of the user; providing… input information obtained from the user to the […consultant…] for obtaining a response output by the […consultant…] in a round of interaction between the user and the […consultant…], wherein the input information and the response are presented in the interaction […location…]; determining… after a multi-round interaction between the user and the […consultant…], whether a presentation condition triggering a health consultation summary is satisfied based on interaction information in the multi-round interaction, wherein the interaction information comprises the input information and the response; and providing… the health consultation summary in the interaction […location…], in response to a determination that the presentation condition triggering the health consultation summary has been satisfied, the health consultation summary having a structured format filled with information corresponding to a plurality of fields extracted from the interaction information, as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, falls in the grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions).
That is, other than reciting a system implemented by at least one processing unit and at least one memory, the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people. For example, but for the processor/memory, this claim encompasses a person interacting with a patient to provide a health consultation summary in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of an electronic device comprising at least one processing unit and at least one memory that implements the identified abstract idea. The processor/memory is not exclusively described by the applicant and is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., general-purpose electronic device) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer or components thereof. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim further recites the additional elements of (1) an interface and (2) a digital assistant. The interaction interface and digital assistant merely generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of (1) an interface and (2) a digital assistant were determined to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. This has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and has also been found insufficient to provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). For completeness, the Examiner notes that the prior art of record indicates that chatbots are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art (see, e.g., U.S. 2022/0229993 to Vu et al. at Para. 0028; U.S. 2020/0228470 to Koo et al. at Para. 0003; U.S. 2019/0142062 to Dayama et al. at Para. 0070). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not provide significantly more. As such the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-13 and 15-19 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide an inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination.
Claims 2 and 15 merely describe determining whether the presentation condition triggering the health consultation summary is satisfied, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claims 3 and 16 merely describe providing the health consultation summary, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claims 4 and 17 merely describe generating the health consultation summary, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claims 5 and 18 merely describe selecting the at least one field from the plurality of predetermined fields, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claims 6 and 19 merely describe where the key information is extracted from, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim 7 merely describes providing the health consultation summary, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim 7 further recites the additional element of a summary plug-in, which is considered to “generally link” under both the practical application and the significantly more analysis.
Claim 8 merely describes providing at least one interaction option, and performing a target interaction operation, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim 9 merely describes at least one interaction operation, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim 10 merely describes providing the health consultation summary, and providing the interaction information, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim 11 merely describes at least one entity term, and each entry link, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim 11 further recites an entry page, which is considered part of the abstract idea.
Claim 12 merely describes at least one of an access link, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim 13 merely describes the digital assistant, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim 13 further recites the additional element of a model, which is considered to represent “apply it” on a generic computer. The Examiner notes that the model is described in the Specification at Para. 0026 as machine learning, and encompasses a neural network model.
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 1-3, 10, 13-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilewicz (WO 2024/258124) in view of Shrubsole et al. (EP 3588512), referred to hereinafter as Shrubsole.
REGARDING CLAIM 1
Gilewicz teaches the claimed method of information interaction, comprising:
in response to detecting, by the electronic device, a consultation initiation operation, providing an interaction interface between a user and a digital assistant for health consultation of the user; [Para. 0148 teaches an Initial Consultation Phase which centers on initiating patient contact. Para. 0060 teaches providing a direct interface for a patient (user). Para. 0066 teaches an AI Assistant can facilitate a diagnostic process (health consultation) via interaction with the patient. The Examiner notes that consultation may include any type of conversation and/or request for conversation.]
providing, by the electronic device, input information obtained from the user to the digital assistant for obtaining a response output by the digital assistant in a round of interaction between the user and the digital assistant, wherein the input information and the response are presented in the interaction interface; [Para. 0062 teaches a client device utilizing a client interface. During a conversational diagnostic process, participants (e.g., a patient) input information into the system via the client device. The AI Assistant partakes in the diagnostic process, posing questions or acting as a doctor’s assistant.]
determining, by the electronic device, after a multi-round interaction between the user and the digital assistant, whether a presentation condition triggering a health consultation summary is satisfied based on interaction information in the multi-round interaction, wherein the interaction information comprises the input information and the response; and [Para. 0146 teaches assessing the conversation’s progress by evaluating the data and responses procured by the AI Assistant. If a sufficient amount of information has been received to meet the conversation’s objectives, the AI Assistant generates and displays a summary along with recommendations. Fig. 6, items 616 and 617, teaches the AI Assistant determining the conversation is finished (if the presentation condition is satisfied), and creating the recommendations (summary) as a result.]
Gilewicz may not explicitly teach
providing, by the electronic device, the health consultation summary in the interaction interface, in response to a determination that the presentation condition triggering the health consultation summary has been satisfied, the health consultation summary having a structured format filled with information corresponding to a plurality of fields extracted from the interaction information.
However, Shrubsole teaches the following:
providing, by the electronic device, the health consultation summary in the interaction interface, in response to a determination that the presentation condition triggering the health consultation summary has been satisfied, the health consultation summary having a structured format filled with information corresponding to a plurality of fields extracted from the interaction information. [Fig. 3 teaches presenting a summary on an interface. Para. 0097 teaches generating a summary including information extracted from the conversation. The summary is generated according to a predetermined template. A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that a template has fields for specific data.]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of computerized healthcare, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify the computer-implemented method of Gilewicz to generate a structured summary using information extracted from the conversation as taught by Shrubsole, with the motivation of improving the presentation of data to a care provider (see Shrubsole at Para. 0066).
REGARDING CLAIM 2
Gilewicz in view of Shrubsole teaches the claimed method of claim 1.
Gilewicz further teaches
determining whether the presentation condition triggering the health consultation summary is satisfied comprises: determining whether the presentation condition triggering the health consultation summary is satisfied based on at least one of: detecting a keyword for triggering the health consultation summary from the interaction information, or determining that the health consultation is able to obtain a predicted consultation conclusion based on the interaction information. [Para. 0158 teaches determining if the health consultation is able to formulate a conclusive diagnosis (predicted consultation conclusion) based on the analysis of the conversation (interaction).]
REGARDING CLAIM 3
Gilewicz in view of Shrubsole teaches the claimed method of claim 1.
Gilewicz further teaches
providing the health consultation summary in the interaction interface comprises: presenting a request for confirmation of an end of the health consultation in the interaction interface, in response to a determination that the presentation condition triggering the health consultation summary has been satisfied; in response to receiving the confirmation of the end of the health consultation by the user, providing the health consultation summary in the interaction interface. [Para. 0125 teaches asking if the patient has any other concerns (a request for confirmation of an end of the health consultation). Para. 0146 teaches displaying the summary in response to determining the corresponding diagnostic model exists (presentation condition has been satisfied).]
REGARDING CLAIM 10
Gilewicz in view of Shrubsole teaches the claimed method of claim 1.
Gilewicz further teaches
in response to detecting a viewing request on the health consultation of the user, providing the health consultation summary; and in response to receiving a viewing request on an interaction history of the health consultation, providing the interaction information between the user and the digital assistant in the health consultation. [Para. 0146 teaches displaying the summary. The Examiner notes that the claim does not say who/what initiates a viewing request. If the summary is displayed, it is due to a request.]
REGARDING CLAIM 13
Gilewicz in view of Shrubsole teaches the claimed method of claim 1.
Gilewicz further teaches
the digital assistant generates a response to the user based on a model. [Para. 0137 teaches the AI Assistant uses machine learning algorithms and adaptive diagnostic model switching to analyze the patient’s responses, and generate responses.]
REGARDING CLAIMS 14 AND 20
Claims 14 and 20 are analogous to Claim 1, thus Claims 14 and 20 are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim 1.
REGARDING CLAIMS 15 AND 16
Claims 15 and 16 are analogous to Claims 2 and 3, respectively, thus Claims 15 and 16 are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejections of Claims 2 and 3.
Claims 4-8 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilewicz in view of Shrubsole and Gharpure et al. (U.S. 12/347,573), referred to hereinafter as Gharpure.
REGARDING CLAIM 4
Gilewicz in view of Shrubsole teaches the claimed method of claim 1.
Gilewicz in view of Shrubsole may not explicitly teach
generating the health consultation summary by: selecting at least one field from a plurality of predetermined fields based on the interaction information between the user and the digital assistant, each field indicating a type of information to be filled in; and filling in the selected at least one field based on key information extracted from the interaction information to obtain the health consultation summary.
However, Gharpure teaches the following:
generating the health consultation summary by: selecting at least one field from a plurality of predetermined fields based on the interaction information between the user and the digital assistant, each field indicating a type of information to be filled in; and filling in the selected at least one field based on key information extracted from the interaction information to obtain the health consultation summary. [Claim 1 teaches selecting a template (containing sections, interpreted as fields) from a plurality of templates based on a trigger phrase (key information) in the interaction information. The interaction information is split into multiple portions (for each section). The first portion of the multiple portions is added to a first section of the template.]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of computerized healthcare, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify the computer-implemented method of Gilewicz in view of Shrubsole to select and fill in sections of a form based on patient interaction information as taught by Gharpure, with the motivation of improving the accuracy (see Gharpure at Col. 19, Line 35).
REGARDING CLAIM 5
Gilewicz in view of Shrubsole and Gharpure teaches the claimed method of claim 4.
Gharpure further teaches
selecting the at least one field from the plurality of predetermined fields comprises: determining a disease prediction corresponding to the health consultation of the user based on the interaction information between the user and the digital assistant; and selecting the at least one field from the plurality of predetermined fields based at least on the disease prediction. [Col. 17, Line 46-64 teaches determining a condition (interpreted as a disease prediction) corresponding to the health consultation of the user based on the trigger phrases identified in the interaction information. The sections (fields) are selected based on the condition that corresponds to the associated trigger phrase.]
REGARDING CLAIM 6
Gilewicz in view of Shrubsole and Gharpure teaches the claimed method of claim 4.
Gharpure further teaches
the key information is extracted from at least one of: a textual dialog between the user and the digital assistant, or non-textual information input by the user. [Col. 19, Line 6-10 teaches the trigger phrase (interpreted as key information) is extracted from the conversation, which includes a text-based transcript (textual dialog).]
REGARDING CLAIM 7
Gilewicz in view of Shrubsole teaches the claimed method of claim 1.
Gilewicz in view of Shrubsole may not explicitly teach
providing the health consultation summary in the interaction interface comprises: triggering an invocation to a summary plug-in in response to a determination that the presentation condition triggering the health consultation summary has been satisfied, the summary plug-in being configured to generate the health consultation summary based on the interaction information between the user and the digital assistant; and providing the health consultation summary generated by the summary plug-in.
However, Gharpure teaches the following:
providing the health consultation summary in the interaction interface comprises: triggering an invocation to a summary plug-in in response to a determination that the presentation condition triggering the health consultation summary has been satisfied, the summary plug-in being configured to generate the health consultation summary based on the interaction information between the user and the digital assistant; and providing the health consultation summary generated by the summary plug-in. [Col. 16, Line 31-33 teaches creating a proposed template, receiving feedback, and modifying the proposed template until it is approved. The Examiner notes that the plug-in is interpreted to include programming on the current computer of Gilewicz.]
Motivation to combine the teaching of Gharpure with the teachings of Gilewicz and Shrubsole is the same as that presented with respect to claim 4 and is therefore reiterated here.
REGARDING CLAIM 8
Gilewicz in view of Shrubsole teaches the claimed method of claim 1.
Gilewicz in view of Shrubsole may not explicitly teach
in response to detecting an interaction triggering operation on the health consultation summary, providing at least one interaction option for the health consultation summary, each interaction option corresponding to an interaction operation for the health consultation summary; and in response to receiving a selection of a target interaction option in the at least one interaction option, performing a target interaction operation corresponding to the target interaction option on the health consultation summary.
However, Gharpure teaches the following:
in response to detecting an interaction triggering operation on the health consultation summary, providing at least one interaction option for the health consultation summary, each interaction option corresponding to an interaction operation for the health consultation summary; and in response to receiving a selection of a target interaction option in the at least one interaction option, performing a target interaction operation corresponding to the target interaction option on the health consultation summary. [Col. 30, Line 21-27 teaches a printer that receives various inputs from a user and provides various outputs to a user. The Examiner notes that printing is an interaction option.]
Motivation to combine the teaching of Gharpure with the teachings of Gilewicz and Shrubsole is the same as that presented with respect to claim 4 and is therefore reiterated here.
REGARDING CLAIMS 17-19
Claims 17-19 are analogous to Claims 4-6, respectively, thus Claims 17-19 are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejections of Claims 4-6.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilewicz in view of Shrubsole, Gharpure, and Salvati (WO 2020206379).
REGARDING CLAIM 9
Gilewicz in view of Shrubsole and Gharpure teaches the claimed method of claim 8.
Gilewicz in view of Shrubsole and Gharpure may not explicitly teach
at least one interaction operation corresponding to the at least one interaction option comprises at least one of: a copy operation, an operation of export to local, a share operation, and a print operation.
However, Salvati teaches the following:
at least one interaction operation corresponding to the at least one interaction option comprises at least one of: a copy operation, an operation of export to local, a share operation, and a print operation. [Page 68, 22a teaches sharing, copying, and printing.]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of computerized healthcare, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify the computer-implemented method of Gilewicz in view of Shrubsole and Gharpure to share, copy, and print as taught by Salvati, with the motivation of improving the speed (see Salvati at Page 49).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilewicz in view of Shrubsole and Salvati (WO 2020206379).
REGARDING CLAIM 11
Gilewicz in view of Shrubsole teaches the claimed method of claim 1.
Gilewicz in view of Shrubsole may not explicitly teach
at least one entity term is annotated with a respective entry link in the health consultation summary, and each entry link is used to access an entry page corresponding to an entity term.
However, Salvati teaches the following:
at least one entity term is annotated with a respective entry link in the health consultation summary, and each entry link is used to access an entry page corresponding to an entity term. [Para. 0006 teaches generating a summary includes generating a hyperlink that connects at least two entries to at least two corresponding records of the set of records.]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of computerized healthcare, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify the computer-implemented method of Gilewicz in view of Shrubsole to provide an entry link in the summary as taught by Salvati, with the motivation of improving the speed (see Salvati at Page 49).
REGARDING CLAIM 12
Gilewicz in view of Shrubsole teaches the claimed method of claim 1.
Gilewicz in view of Shrubsole may not explicitly teach
at least one of an access link of the health consultation summary, or an access link of the interaction information is provided in a page associated with the health consultation summary.
However, Salvati teaches the following:
at least one of an access link of the health consultation summary, or an access link of the interaction information is provided in a page associated with the health consultation summary. [Para. 0006 teaches generating a summary includes generating a hyperlink that connects at least two entries to at least two corresponding records of the set of records.]
Motivation to combine the teaching of Salvati with the teachings of Gilewicz and Shrubsole is the same as the presented with respect to claim 11 and is therefore reiterated here.
Response to Arguments
Drawings
Regarding the drawing objection(s), the Applicant has submitted replacement drawings which have alleviated several drawing issues; however, additional issues remain. As such, the objection is maintained.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-20, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however, the arguments are not persuasive. Any arguments inadvertently not addressed are unpersuasive for at least the following reasons. Applicant argues:
…the method recited herein should be referred to as a method that can be performed by a processor or an electronic device rather than an abstract idea.
Regarding (a), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Making the claim a computer-implemented method does not affect whether an abstraction is present. Alice Corp. said: “Instead, the claims at issue amount to "nothing significantly more" than an instruction to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement using some unspecified, generic computer. […] Under our precedents, that is not "enough" to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”
In the technical field of online medical consultation, the method recited in Claim 1 can at least provide a portal for the user to interact with the digital assistant. In this way, the process of online medical consultation can be simplified and the learning procedure required for such online medical consultation can be shortened, therefore, the claim method can provide beneficial technical contribution.
Regarding (b), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states “the word ‘improvements’ in the context of this consideration is limited to improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology/technical field, whether in Step 2A Prong Two or in Step 2B.” Here, there is no improvement to the computer nor is there an improvement to another technology. Because neither type of improvement is present in the claims, an improvement to technology is not present and there is no practical application.
Applicant’s argument that the field of online medical consultation is a technology and the claimed invention improves this field is not reflected in the claimed invention. The claims are confined to a general-purpose computer and do not claim online medical consultation. Moreover, the entire field of online medical consultation is not reasonably understood to be a problem arising in technology, as it is instead a problem arising in healthcare. The claimed invention is using a computer as a tool and any improvement present is an improvement to the abstract idea of, to paraphrase, generating a health consultation summary based on an interaction with a patient. Finally, if Applicant’s line of reasoning were correct, the invention in Alice Corp. would have been subject matter eligible because it was an improvement to the technology of settlement risk mitigation.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-20, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however, these arguments are moot given the new grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendment and/or afforded by the present RCE.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Shields et al. (U.S. 2025/0329461) which discloses a system for use in connection with providing medical treatment to a patient.
Colley et al. (U.S. 2021/0090694) which discloses systems and methods for data based cancer research and treatment.
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 CAMRYN B LEWIS whose telephone number is (703)756-1807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11:00 am - 8:00 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, Robert W Morgan can be reached at 571-272-6773. 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.
/CAMRYN B LEWIS/
Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/JASON S TIEDEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights