DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed July 27, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 5, 8-10, 14, and 17 remain pending in the application. Claims 1, 5, 10, and 14 are noted as amended and claims 2-4, 6-7, 11-13, and 15-16 are noted as cancelled. Applicant’s amendments to the specification and claims have overcome all previous objections, 112(b), and 112(d) rejections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed April 27, 2026 and all objections and rejections therein have been withdrawn. Further, Applicant’s amendments render the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation moot as the claims no longer invoke the three-prong test, and the interpretation is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 5, 8-10, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the basis of information" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommends amending the limitation to read “problem based on information inputted”.
Claims 5, 8, and 9 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from claim 1.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the basis of information" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommends amending the limitation to read “problem based on information inputted”.
Claims 14 and 17 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from claim 10.
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, 5, 8-10, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1 and 10 recite a process and a computer system for performing the process, the process including the steps of acquiring a first learning problem; generating a first solution explanation with reference to the first learning problem, and generating a second solution explanation with reference to the first learning problem; generating a first analogous solution explanation with reference to the first solution explanation, and generating a second analogous solution explanation with reference to the second solution explanation; generating a first analogous learning problem with reference to the first analogous solution explanation, and generating a second analogous learning problem with reference to the second analogous solution explanation; verifying at least one of the first solution explanation, the second solution explanation, the first analogous solution explanation, the second analogous solution explanation, the first analogous learning problem, and the second analogous learning problem on the basis of information inputted by at least one administrator; and determining one of the first analogous learning problem and the second analogous learning problem as a second learning problem with reference to a result of the verification. The recited steps, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are acquiring a learning problem, generating a first and second solution explanation with reference to the problem, generating a first analogous solution explanation for the first solution explanation and a second analogous solution for the second solution explanation, generating first and second analogous learning problems with reference to the first and second analogous solution explanations respectfully, verifying at least one of the generated explanations and analogous learning problems based on information inputted by at least one administrator, and generating a second learning problem with reference to at least one of the first and second solution explanation. The recited steps, as drafted, are a process that is a method of applying an abstract idea, specifically mental processes (evaluation (generating first and second solution explanations; generating first and second analogous solution explanations; generating first and second analogous learning problems; verifying at least one of the explanations and analogous learning problems), judgement (determining a second learning problem), observation (acquiring a first learning problem)) and/or certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of teaching (acquiring a learning problem; generating a first and second solution explanation; generating first and second analogous solution explanations; generating first and second analogous learning problems; verifying at least one of the explanations and analogous learning problems; determining a second learning problem). If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, include a mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity, the limitations fall under the abstract ideas judicial exception and therefore recite ineligible subject matter. Accordingly, claims 1 and 10 recite abstract ideas.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception or meaningfully limit the practice of the judicial exception. The additional elements are a system comprising one or more processors; performing the steps by the one or more processors; using a first language model; using a second language model; and information inputted by at least one administrator. The additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity and instructions for applying the judicial exception with a generic computing device as, under their broadest reasonable interpretation. The additional element of information inputted by at least one administrator is mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The additional elements of processors and performing the steps using the processors are generic computer components and instructions for performing the above method with a generic computing device, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements are generic components/instructions of a computing device used to apply the abstract idea. Further, paragraph 3 of page 8 of the specification states the device is “any type of digital equipment having a memory means and a microprocessor for computing capabilities, such as a smart phone, a table, a smart watch…” and other generic computing devices. As such, these additional elements are interpreted as merely instructions to apply the judicial exception. Regarding the usage of a first and second language model for generating the first and second solution explanations and analogous solution explanation, the language models are recited at a high level of generality amounting to computer code/instructions for performing the abstract ideas as the recited steps are mental processes and/or CMOHA except for the recitation of using language models. Therefore, the use of a first and second language models are mere instructions for applying the judicial exceptions and merely generally linking the judicial exceptions with AI/ML technologies. Accordingly, the additional elements and steps do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements of processors, using the processors, and using a first and second language model used to perform the process are generic computing components/instructions used to apply the judicial exception and therefore fall under the “apply it” limitation of the judicial exception and do not amount to significantly more per MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, the additional element of information inputted by an administrator is insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the limitations, taken in combination, add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. As such, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements do not meaningfully limit the practice of the abstract idea and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Therefore, claims 1 and 10 are not directed to eligible subject matter as they are directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claims 5, 8-9, 14, and 17 are dependent from claims 1 and 10 and include all the limitations of the independent claims. Therefore, the dependent claims recite the same abstract idea. The limitations of the dependent claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example:
The limitations of claims 5 and 14 recite further abstract ideas including determining the second learning problem to have a difficulty level higher or lower than a predetermined difficulty level in response to a user’s learning level (judgement MP; CMOHA). As the limitations are further abstract ideas, the limitations cannot meaningfully limit or amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas of the independent claims. The limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on these claims.
The limitations of claims 8 and 17 recite insignificant extra-solution activity by merely defining the differences/type of data manipulated by the first and second language models. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are merely defining/selecting a type of data to be manipulated which, per MPEP 2106.05(g), is insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on these claims.
The limitation of claim 9 recites the method of claim 1 is implemented as a NTCRRM having a computer program stored thereon. The recitation of a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having stored thereon a computer program is a generic computing component for applying the judicial exceptions with a generic computing device. Therefore, the limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on these claims.
Accordingly, claims 5, 8-9, 14, and 17 are directed to abstract ideas without significantly more and are not drawn to eligible subject matter.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 8, 9, 14, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vleugels et al. (US PGPub 20240274025), hereinafter referred to as Vleugels, in view of Ikenaga et al. (US PGPub 20170316710), hereinafter referred to as Ikenaga, and further in view of Romney et al. (US PGPub 20140017653), hereinafter referred to as Romney.
With regard to claims 1 and 10, Vleugels teaches a method performed in a system [claim 1] (Abstract; Paragraph 0044; “method”) and a system [claim 10] (Abstract; Paragraph 0044; “system”) for generating learning problems (Abstract; Paragraphs 0044, 0080, 0126 teach the system can generate and present questions (problems)), the system comprising one or more processors (Paragraphs 0058, 0151; “one or more processors”) configured to and the method comprising:
acquiring, by the one or more processors, a first learning problem (Paragraphs 0106, 0126, 0132-0133, 0142 teach the system can receive a prompt with regard to a question/problem that has been created (acquired) by the assessment generator such as a skills-assessment prompt); and
generating, by the one or more processors, a first solution explanation with reference to the first learning problem using a first language model, and generate a second solution explanation with reference to the first learning problem using a second language model (Paragraphs 0127-0128, 0132-0134, 0142, 0145, 0147 teach the system can generate answer (solution) explanations and clarifications using an AI model wherein the system can generate additional (second) explanations using the same or a different (second) AI model wherein the explanation or clarification can be based in part on the original prompt/question).
Vleugels may not explicitly teach generating, by the one or more processors, a first analogous solution explanation with reference to the first solution explanation using the first language model, and generating a second analogous solution explanation with reference to the second solution explanation using the second language model, but as discussed above, Vleugels teaches the system can provide additional clarification or explanation (analogous solution explanation) based on a follow-on question with regard to the first or additional (second) explanations and wherein the system can use different AI models to generate the explanations (Paragraphs 0128, 0145, 0147). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Vleugels by duplicating the step of generating explanations and further clarifications such that a clarification (analogous solution) can be generated based on a first explanation and an additional/second explanation thereby generating a first and second clarification or supplemental explanation (analogous solution) using the same or a different AI model, see MPEP 2144.04 and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to provide alternative explanations to improve user comprehension and performance. Upon such modification, Vleugels would include generating, by the one or more processors, a first analogous solution explanation with reference to the first solution explanation using the first language model, and generating a second analogous solution explanation with reference to the second solution explanation using the second language model.
Vleugels may not explicitly teach generating, by the one or more processors, a first analogous learning problem with reference to the first analogous solution explanation, and generating a second analogous learning problem with reference to the second analogous solution explanation; and determining, by the one or more processors, one of the first analogous learning problem and the second analogous learning problem as a second learning problem. However, Ikenaga teaches a system and method for generating and assessing educational questions including generating explanations of the questions and answers and generates similar questions based on the generated first question and explanation (Paragraphs 0036, 0049, 0051, 0067, 0069, 0102).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vleugels to incorporate the teachings of Ikenaga by incorporating the step of generating (determining) a similar (second) question based on the first question and explanation of Ikenaga for the assessment of Vleugels, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to learning management systems including generating questions and explanations of the questions and answers. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Vleugels by coding the system to receive a prompt and/or continue an assessment by generating and presenting (determining) a similar question to the first question based on the first question and the generated explanations including the first and additional (second) explanations including an additional clarification or additional explanation (analogous solution explanation) generated by Vleugels and the generated first or additional (second) explanations wherein generating a second similar question based on a second explanation would be a mere duplication of the step and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to generate more options for questions to improve learner comprehension, see MPEP 2144.04 and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). One of ordinary skill in the art would further modify Vleugels by generating additional similar questions based on each additional explanation. Upon such modification, the method and system of Vleugels would include generating, by the one or more processors, a first analogous learning problem with reference to the first analogous solution explanation, and generating a second analogous learning problem with reference to the second analogous solution explanation; and determining, by the one or more processors, one of the first analogous learning problem and the second analogous learning problem as a second learning problem. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Ikenaga with Vleugels’s system and method in order to improve user comprehension and performance by reinforcing learning concepts and material.
Vleugels in view of Ikenaga may not explicitly teach verifying, by the one or more processors, at least one of the first solution explanation, the second solution explanation, the first analogous solution explanation, the second analogous solution explanation, the first analogous learning problem, and the second analogous learning problem on the basis of information inputted by at least one administrator; and determining the second learning problem with reference to a result of the verification. However, Romney teaches a system and method for providing educational content including generating content and allowing administrator users to vet and verify the educational content before the content is used or disseminated such that the system only adds and provides content after it is vetted/verified (Paragraphs 0067, 0069, 0075, 0088, 0092).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vleugels in view of Ikenaga to incorporate the teachings of Romney by incorporating the step of vetting the generated educational content to ensure it complies with standards set by an administrator of Romney for the generated questions and explanations of Vleugels in view of Ikenaga, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to learning management systems including generating questions and providing content to learners. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Vleugels in view of Ikenaga by coding the system to vet the generated questions, explanations, and clarifications to be compliant with standards and requirements set by an administrator in order to allow the administrator to verify and vet the content for quality and consistency such that the generated explanations and/or problems are only provided/determined if they meet the vetting requirements (result of the verification). Upon such modification, the method and system of Vleugels in view of Ikenaga would include verifying, by the one or more processors, at least one of the first solution explanation, the second solution explanation, the first analogous solution explanation, the second analogous solution explanation, the first analogous learning problem, and the second analogous learning problem on the basis of information inputted by at least one administrator; and determining the second learning problem with reference to a result of the verification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Romney with Vleugels in view of Ikenaga’s system and method in order to improve content quality and ensure the generated content meets academic and accreditation standards.
With regard to claims 5 and 14, Vleugels may not explicitly teach wherein in the step of determining the second learning problem, the second learning problem is determined to have a difficulty level higher than a predetermined difficulty level in response to a user's learning level being not lower than a predetermined learning level, and to have a difficulty level lower than the predetermined difficulty level in response to the user's learning level being lower than the predetermined learning level. However, Ikenaga further teaches generating the questions with set parameters including a degree of difficulty wherein the degree of difficulty is calculated from the correct answer rate of the user such that the question will have a high degree of difficulty if the degree of learning of the user is high and will have a low degree of difficulty if the degree of learning of the user is low wherein the determination of high or low is based on a predetermined threshold (Paragraphs 0081-0082, 0088).
As discussed above, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vleugels to incorporate the teachings of Ikenaga by incorporating the step of generating a similar (second) question based on the first question and an explanation wherein the question has a degree of difficulty of Ikenaga for the assessment of Vleugels, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to learning management systems including generating questions and explanations of the questions and answers. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Vleugels by coding the system to receive a prompt and/or continue an assessment by generating and presenting a similar question to the first question based on the first question and the generated explanations including additional clarifications or additional explanations wherein the similar second question has a degree of difficulty being high or low based on the user’s degree of learning (learning level) is higher or lower than a predetermined threshold. Upon such modification, the method and system of Vleugels would include wherein in the step of determining the second learning problem, the second learning problem is determined to have a difficulty level higher than a predetermined difficulty level in response to a user's learning level being not lower than a predetermined learning level, and to have a difficulty level lower than the predetermined difficulty level in response to the user's learning level being lower than the predetermined learning level. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Ikenaga with Vleugels’s system and method in order to improve user comprehension and performance by reinforcing learning concepts and material.
With regard to claims 8 and 17, Vleugels further teaches wherein the second language model differs from the first language model in terms of at least one of a model operation method (Paragraphs 0043, 0058, 0150 teaches the models can be computational or generative).
With regard to claim 9, Vleugels, as modified, further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having stored thereon a computer program for executing (Paragraphs 0059, 0062 teach the methods and systems may be implemented as a set of program instructions stored in a memory and executed by a processor) the method of claim 1 (see prior art rejection of claim 1 above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, pages 6-9, filed July 27, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 5, 8-10, 14, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are as follows: A) the claims do not recite mental processes as the claimed steps are performed by one or more processors and AI models cannot be performed between people or in the mind, B) the first and second language models in combination with the steps recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they impose meaningful limits, and C) the first and second language models in combination with the steps recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Regarding argument A, Examiner notes that, per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), claims can recite judicial exceptions even if they require a computer or computer hardware as processes between a person and computer can fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity and the use of a computer as a tool to perform a mental process still recites the mental process. Therefore, the claims recite the judicial exceptions as discussed above even though the claims require one or more processors/a computer and the language models to perform the steps. These additional elements have been further considered under steps 2A, prong two and step 2B as additional elements, but as discussed above, the additional elements are hardware and instructions for applying the judicial exceptions with a generic computing device which do not amount to a practical application or significantly more than the judicial combinations when considered individually or in combination. Regarding arguments B and C, the arguments under Step 2A, prong two and Step 2B are largely summary of the amendment and claimed invention and do not make any substantiative arguments on the merits. There is therefore nothing for the examiner to rebut. Therefore, the claims, as discussed above, are directed to judicial exceptions without significantly more, and the claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pages 9-12, filed July 27, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 5, 8-10, 14, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive by virtue of Applicant’s amendments to the claims by amending the limitations of previous claims 6-7 and 15-16 to the independent claims. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Vleugels in view of Ikenaga and Romney. Addressing Applicant’s arguments regarding the references, Examiner does not find the arguments persuasive. Applicant’s arguments analyze the references individually rather than as a combination of the references. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Further, Applicant states the Vleugels fails to teach generating the explanation based on the reference learning problem rather than assessing the user’s answer. First, the answer is an answer to the question and would implicitly require consideration of the question/prompt related to the answer in order to generate an explanation of a solution for the question. Further, Vleugels explicitly states that the explanation request and additional explanation request can include the prompt/original prompt (question) for which the explanation is generated and therefore explicitly generates the explanation based in part on the question/prompt (Vleugels paragraphs 0133, 0145, 0147). Finally, the use of a user’s answer as part of the generation of an explanation is not excluded by the instant claim language and therefore does not impose meaningful difference from the generation of Vleugels and the instant application. Similarly, Applicant further argues that Vleugels fails to teach generating the analogous solutions based on the first solution explanation. However, Vleugels explicitly states that the additional clarification or explanation request can include “the correctness assessment, the explanation-specific response” (the first solution explanation) which teaches the claimed limitation. Applicant further argues that Ikenaga does not teach generating similar questions based on the solution explanation. Examiner notes that the claim limitation is merely generating a first and second analogous learning problem with reference to the first and second solution explanations (emphasis added) but does not recite or claim specifically what the “with reference to” includes or requires and under its broadest reasonable interpretation can include generating the similar problem to be similar based on the solution and method of the first question (the solution) which Ikenaga teaches as the generated similar question is generated after displaying the explanation and based on the template related to the questions including the explanation. Further, the teachings are applied to modify Vleugels thereby in combination teaching the limitation. Finally, Applicant argues that Romney fails to teach the verification based on an administrator input, but Romney explicitly states the vetting is based on academic curriculum and standards which are maintained by (inputted by) vettors and administrators which teaches the limitation. Further, as the limitation merely states verifying the content “on the basis of information inputted by at least one administrator”, the limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation would include an administrator simply verifying or vetting the content which Romney allows an administrator to do. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Vleugels in view of Ikenaga and Romney as discussed above.
Conclusion
Accordingly, claims 1, 5, 8-10, 14, and 17 are rejected.
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 CORRELL T FRENCH whose telephone number is (571)272-8162. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am-5pm; Alt Fri 7:30am-4pm 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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/CORRELL T FRENCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights