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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/04/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged that application claims priority to foreign application with application number WO-2017/217185 with a priority date of 10/04/2024. Copies of certified papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 have been received.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 7-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: second obtainment processing and second calculation processing.
Claims 12-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: second obtainment processing, second calculation processing, third obtainment processing, third calculation processing, fourth obtainment processing, and fourth calculation processing.
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, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental process (concept performed in a human mind, including as observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The claims recite a method of checking and determining the quality of documents. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps do not add meaningful limitations to be considered specifically applied to a particular technological problem to be solved. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the claimed invention can be done mentally and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such.
According to the USPTO guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
• STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
• STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
o STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural
phenomenon?
o STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the
judicial exception into a practical application?
o STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more
than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims 1 and 10 are directed to an abstract idea as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories?
YES. Claim 1 is directed to a method, i.e., process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?
YES, the claims are directed toward a mental processes (i.e., abstract idea).
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
• Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations,
mathematical calculations;
• Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or
practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions
(including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales
activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or
interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or
instructions); and
• Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an
observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The method in claim 1 comprise a set of evaluations on structures that can be done through mental processes.
Claim 1 recites:
An information processing apparatus comprising: one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors that execute the instructions to: detect a defect in a structure based on an image of the structure and generate defect data indicating a detection result, calculate a hash value of the defect data, record the defect data and the calculated hash value of the defect data, perform first obtainment processing of obtaining the recorded defect data and the recorded hash value of the defect data, perform first calculation processing of calculating a hash value of the defect data obtained in the first obtainment processing, and verify whether the defect data obtained in the first obtainment processing has been altered by comparing the hash value of the defect data calculated in the first calculation processing with the hash value of the defect data obtained in the first obtainment processing.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
NO, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
• an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an
improvement to other technology or technical field;
• an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment
or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
• an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in
conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
• an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different
state or thing; and
• an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way
beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological
environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
• an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial
exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or
merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
• an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
• an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a
particular technological environment or field of use.
Claims 1, and 18-19 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre- guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
• adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine,
conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
• simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
With regard to (2b) the Guidance provided the following examples of limitations that may be enough to qualify as “significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception:
• Improvement to another technology or technical field
• Improvement to functioning of computer itself and/or applying the judicial
exception with, or by use of, a particular machine
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or
thing.
• Adding a specific limitation other that what is well understood, routine and
conventional in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to
a particular useful application
• Meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a
particular technological environment.
The Guidance further set forth limitations that were found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
• Adding words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception or mere
instructions to implement abstract ideas on a computer
• Simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously
known to the industry specified at a high level of generality to the judicial
exception, e.g. a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic
• Computer to perform generic computer functions that are well -understood,
routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g. mere data
gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea
• Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological
environment or field of use.
Claims 1, and 18-19 do not recite any additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional.
Thus, since Claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, claim 1 is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101. Similar analysis is made for the dependent claims 2-17 and the dependent claims are similarly identified as: being directed towards an abstract idea, not reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and not reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 12-13, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hortia et al. (US Patent Number 2023/0112828-A1, hereinafter “Hortia”) in view of Cai et al. (US Patent Number 10999075-B2, hereinafter “Cai”).
Regarding claim 1, Hortia teaches: An information processing apparatus comprising: one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors that execute the instructions to: (Fig. 1)
detect a defect in a structure based on an image of the structure and generate defect data indicating a detection result, ([0060], "As shown in FIG. 4, the inspection support method comprises a step (step S1) of acquiring image data including a structural drawing, the damage identification information, and the captured image identification information, a step (step S2) of recognizing the damage identification information from the image data, a step (step S3) of recognizing the captured image identification information from the image data, a step (step S4) of associating the damage identification information and the captured image identification information with each other for the same damage, a step (step S5) of acquiring the captured image corresponding to the captured image identification information, and a step (step S6) of associating the damage identification information and the captured image identification information with each other.")
calculate a hash value of the defect data,
record the defect data ([0060], "As shown in FIG. 4, the inspection support method comprises a step (step S1) of acquiring image data including a structural drawing, the damage identification information, and the captured image identification information, a step (step S2) of recognizing the damage identification information from the image data, a step (step S3) of recognizing the captured image identification information from the image data, a step (step S4) of associating the damage identification information and the captured image identification information with each other for the same damage, a step (step S5) of acquiring the captured image corresponding to the captured image identification information, and a step (step S6) of associating the damage identification information and the captured image identification information with each other.")
perform first obtainment processing of obtaining the recorded defect data ([0060], "a step (step S2) of recognizing the damage identification information from the image data, a step (step S3) of recognizing the captured image identification information from the image data, a step (step S4) of associating the damage identification information and the captured image identification information with each other for the same damage, a step (step S5) of acquiring the captured image corresponding to the captured image identification information, and a step (step S6) of associating the damage identification information and the captured image identification information with each other.")
Hortia does not teach:
calculate a hash value of the defect data,
record … the calculated hash value of the defect data,
and the recorded hash value of the defect data, perform first calculation processing of calculating a hash value of the defect data obtained in the first obtainment processing, and verify whether the defect data obtained in the first obtainment processing has been altered by comparing the hash value of the defect data calculated in the first calculation processing with the hash value of the defect data obtained in the first obtainment processing.
However, CaI does teach: calculate a hash value of the defect data, (Cai, [0128], "After the patrol inspection proof storage information is found through a query, irreversible verification information of the patrol inspection proof storage information is computed, and the irreversible verification information is compared with corresponding irreversible verification information stored on a blockchain. If the two pieces of irreversible verification information are consistent, it indicates that the patrol inspection proof storage information is not tampered with and can be trusted. If the pieces of irreversible verification information are inconsistent, it indicates that the patrol inspection proof storage information may be tampered with and is untrusted. By verifying a hash value of the patrol inspection proof storage information, whether the patrol inspection proof storage information can be trusted is determined.")
record … the calculated hash value of the defect data, (Cai, [0128], "After the patrol inspection proof storage information is found through a query, irreversible verification information of the patrol inspection proof storage information is computed, and the irreversible verification information is compared with corresponding irreversible verification information stored on a blockchain. If the two pieces of irreversible verification information are consistent, it indicates that the patrol inspection proof storage information is not tampered with and can be trusted. If the pieces of irreversible verification information are inconsistent, it indicates that the patrol inspection proof storage information may be tampered with and is untrusted. By verifying a hash value of the patrol inspection proof storage information, whether the patrol inspection proof storage information can be trusted is determined.")
and the recorded hash value of the defect data, perform first calculation processing of calculating a hash value of the defect data obtained in the first obtainment processing, and verify whether the defect data obtained in the first obtainment processing has been altered by comparing the hash value of the defect data calculated in the first calculation processing with the hash value of the defect data obtained in the first obtainment processing. (Cai, [0128], "After the patrol inspection proof storage information is found through a query, irreversible verification information of the patrol inspection proof storage information is computed, and the irreversible verification information is compared with corresponding irreversible verification information stored on a blockchain. If the two pieces of irreversible verification information are consistent, it indicates that the patrol inspection proof storage information is not tampered with and can be trusted. If the pieces of irreversible verification information are inconsistent, it indicates that the patrol inspection proof storage information may be tampered with and is untrusted. By verifying a hash value of the patrol inspection proof storage information, whether the patrol inspection proof storage information can be trusted is determined.")
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify structure defect detection (as taught by Hortia) to include ledger verification through hashing (as taught by Cai) because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, structure defect detection as modified by ledger verification can yield a predictable result of of preventing defect detection to be compromised by tampering since (Cai, [0128], "After the patrol inspection proof storage information is found through a query, irreversible verification information of the patrol inspection proof storage information is computed, and the irreversible verification information is compared with corresponding irreversible verification information stored on a blockchain. If the two pieces of irreversible verification information are consistent, it indicates that the patrol inspection proof storage information is not tampered with and can be trusted. If the pieces of irreversible verification information are inconsistent, it indicates that the patrol inspection proof storage information may be tampered with and is untrusted. By verifying a hash value of the patrol inspection proof storage information, whether the patrol inspection proof storage information can be trusted is determined."). Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated including in structure defect detection the ability to do ledger verification through hashing since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 4, Hortia in view of Cai teaches: The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors further execute the instructions to: record transaction data indicating a history of processes for detecting a defect in the structure. (Cai, [0128], "After the patrol inspection proof storage information is found through a query, irreversible verification information of the patrol inspection proof storage information is computed, and the irreversible verification information is compared with corresponding irreversible verification information stored on a blockchain. If the two pieces of irreversible verification information are consistent, it indicates that the patrol inspection proof storage information is not tampered with and can be trusted. If the pieces of irreversible verification information are inconsistent, it indicates that the patrol inspection proof storage information may be tampered with and is untrusted. By verifying a hash value of the patrol inspection proof storage information, whether the patrol inspection proof storage information can be trusted is determined.")
Regarding claim 5, Hortia in view of Cai teaches: The information processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the transaction data indicates a storage location of the defect data and the hash value of the defect data. (Cai, [0128], "After the patrol inspection proof storage information is found through a query, irreversible verification information of the patrol inspection proof storage information is computed, and the irreversible verification information is compared with corresponding irreversible verification information stored on a blockchain. If the two pieces of irreversible verification information are consistent, it indicates that the patrol inspection proof storage information is not tampered with and can be trusted. If the pieces of irreversible verification information are inconsistent, it indicates that the patrol inspection proof storage information may be tampered with and is untrusted. By verifying a hash value of the patrol inspection proof storage information, whether the patrol inspection proof storage information can be trusted is determined.")
Regarding claim 12, Hortia in view of Cai teaches: The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors further execute the instructions to: record data generated during processing performed by the information processing apparatus for inspecting the structure, and a hash value of the data; perform fifth obtainment processing of obtaining the recorded data and the hash value of the data; perform fifth calculation processing of calculating a hash value of the data obtained in the fifth obtainment processing; verify whether the data obtained in the fifth obtainment processing has been altered by comparing the hash value of the data calculated in the fifth calculation processing with the hash value of the data obtained in the fifth obtainment processing; and perform specific processing for inspecting the structure in response to determining that data used in the specific processing have not been altered. (Cai, [0128], "After the patrol inspection proof storage information is found through a query, irreversible verification information of the patrol inspection proof storage information is computed, and the irreversible verification information is compared with corresponding irreversible verification information stored on a blockchain. If the two pieces of irreversible verification information are consistent, it indicates that the patrol inspection proof storage information is not tampered with and can be trusted. If the pieces of irreversible verification information are inconsistent, it indicates that the patrol inspection proof storage information may be tampered with and is untrusted. By verifying a hash value of the patrol inspection proof storage information, whether the patrol inspection proof storage information can be trusted is determined.")
Regarding claim 13, Hortia in view of Cai teaches: The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors further execute the instructions to: record data generated during processing performed by the information processing apparatus for inspecting the structure, and a hash value of the data; perform fifth obtainment processing of obtaining the recorded data and the hash value of the data; perform fifth calculation processing of calculating a hash value of the data obtained in the fifth obtainment processing; verify whether the data obtained in the fifth obtainment processing has been altered by comparing the hash value of the data calculated in the fifth calculation processing with the hash value of the data obtained in the fifth obtainment processing; and perform specific processing for inspecting the structure in response to determining that data used in the specific processing have not been altered. (Cai, [0128], "After the patrol inspection proof storage information is found through a query, irreversible verification information of the patrol inspection proof storage information is computed, and the irreversible verification information is compared with corresponding irreversible verification information stored on a blockchain. If the two pieces of irreversible verification information are consistent, it indicates that the patrol inspection proof storage information is not tampered with and can be trusted. If the pieces of irreversible verification information are inconsistent, it indicates that the patrol inspection proof storage information may be tampered with and is untrusted. By verifying a hash value of the patrol inspection proof storage information, whether the patrol inspection proof storage information can be trusted is determined.")
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 has been analyzed with regard to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 has been analyzed with regard to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above as well as in accordance with Hortia further teaching on: A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform a method comprising (Fig. 1)
Claim(s) 6, 11, 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hortia et al. (US Patent Number 2023/0112828-A1, hereinafter “Hortia”) and Cai et al. (US Patent Number 10999075-B2, hereinafter “Cai”) in view of Peeters et al. (US Patent Number 2018/0324407-A1, hereinafter “Peeters”) .
Regarding claim 6, Hortia in view of Cai does not teach: The information processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the one or more processors further execute the instructions to: record a hash value of the transaction data.
However, Peeters does teach: The information processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the one or more processors further execute the instructions to: record a hash value of the transaction data. (Peeters, [0117], "In a distributed ledger, each user running a full node on the computer will download a full copy of the whole blockchain, which will include data of all events, such as transactions, recorded on the blockchain. After that, each node can run independently to process any incoming events, such as transactions, and propagate the event further.")
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify structure defect detection and hash verification (as taught by Hortia and Cai) to include a distributed ledger and blockchain (as taught by Cai) because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, structure defect detection and hash verification as modified by distributed ledger and chain can yield a predictable result of of allowing for transaction in the system to be recorded and prevented from being changed. Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated including in defect detection and hash verification the ability to do store info about transactions inside a distributed ledger with a blockchain since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 11, Hortia and Cai in view of Peeters teaches: The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors further execute the instructions to: register the hash value of the defect data in a blockchain; and obtain the hash value of the defect data from the blockchain in the first obtainment processing. (Peeters, [0117], "In a distributed ledger, each user running a full node on the computer will download a full copy of the whole blockchain, which will include data of all events, such as transactions, recorded on the blockchain. After that, each node can run independently to process any incoming events, such as transactions, and propagate the event further.")
Regarding claim 14, Hortia and Cai in view of Peeters teaches: The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors further execute the instructions to: record transaction data indicating a history of processes performed by the information processing apparatus to inspect the structure. (Peeters, [0117], "In a distributed ledger, each user running a full node on the computer will download a full copy of the whole blockchain, which will include data of all events, such as transactions, recorded on the blockchain. After that, each node can run independently to process any incoming events, such as transactions, and propagate the event further.")
Regarding claim 15, Hortia and Cai in view of Peeters teaches: The information processing apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the transaction data indicates a storage location of data recorded during the processes for inspecting the structure, and a hash value of the data. (Peeters, [0117], "In a distributed ledger, each user running a full node on the computer will download a full copy of the whole blockchain, which will include data of all events, such as transactions, recorded on the blockchain. After that, each node can run independently to process any incoming events, such as transactions, and propagate the event further.")
Regarding claim 16, Hortia and Cai in view of Peeters teaches: The information processing apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the transaction data further indicates a type of the data, a process in which the data was recorded, and a recording time of the data. (Peeters, [0046], "When the patrol inspection proof information of the patrol inspection site is collected by the mobile terminal, a time stamp may be included, wherein the time stamp is a system time of a mobile terminal when the patrol inspection proof information is obtained during the patron inspection."; [0117], "In a distributed ledger, each user running a full node on the computer will download a full copy of the whole blockchain, which will include data of all events, such as transactions, recorded on the blockchain. After that, each node can run independently to process any incoming events, such as transactions, and propagate the event further.")
Regarding claim 17, Hortia and Cai in view of Peeters teaches: The information processing apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the one or more processors further execute the instructions to: register the transaction data in a blockchain. (Peeters, [0117], "In a distributed ledger, each user running a full node on the computer will download a full copy of the whole blockchain, which will include data of all events, such as transactions, recorded on the blockchain. After that, each node can run independently to process any incoming events, such as transactions, and propagate the event further.")
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jinsu Hwang whose telephone number is (703)756-1370. The examiner can normally be reached Mon -Thu 10am-8am 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, Matthew Bella can be reached at (571) 272-7778. 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.
/JINSU HWANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2667
/MATTHEW C BELLA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights