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 .
Election/Restrictions
NO restrictions warranted at applicant’s initial time of filing for patent.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in the REPUBLIC of KOREA on 10/06/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Korean Patent application # 10-2023-0133086 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/07/2024, the submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Applicant’s drawings filed on 12/03/2024 have been inspected and are in compliance with MPEP 608.02.
Specification
Applicant’s specification filed on 12/03/2024 has been inspected and is in compliance with MPEP 608.01.
Claim Objections
NO objections warranted at applicant’s initial time of filing for patent.
Claim Interpretation – 35 USC 112th f
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
As per claim 6. A client apparatus for receiving an artificial intelligence (AI)-based service, the client apparatus comprising:
an interface device that receives configured “to receive a user query;”
a communication device that transmits configured “to transmit a preprocessed user query and receives receive an answer, which is an Al-based service result for the preprocessed user query;” and
a processor configured to perform preprocessing on the user query to replace a target word corresponding to personal information in the received user query with a replacement word and replaces replace the replacement word with the target word corresponding thereto in the answer.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may:
(1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or
(2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Appropriate action required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
NO rejections warranted at applicant’s initial time of filing for patent.
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.
Claim[s] 1 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities: organizing, analyzing, or manipulating information, without significantly more.
In claim[s] 1, 6, in for example, claim # 1, and claim limitations of:
“performing, by the client apparatus, preprocessing on the user query to replace a target word corresponding to personal information in the user query with a corresponding replacement word;” and [i.e. organizing and analyzing information]
“replacing, by the client apparatus, the replacement word in an answer corresponding to the user query that is received from the service server with the target word corresponding thereto.” [i.e. manipulating information]
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining claim limitations of claim 1, lend themselves to adding insignificant extra – solution activity to the judicial exception:
“receiving, by a client apparatus, a user query;” [i.e. adding insignificant extra – solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g)]
“transmitting, by the client apparatus, the preprocessed user query to a service server for providing an AI-based service;” [i.e. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)]
The claim(s) 2 - 10 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the dependent claims either further recited identified abstract idea, another abstract idea, or adding insignificant extra – solution activity to the judicial exception, or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, in the following manner:
As per claim 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the performing of the preprocessing includes: detecting, by the client apparatus, the target word in the user query; embedding, by the client apparatus, the target word; determining, by the client apparatus, the replacement word based on an embedding value of the target word; and replacing, by the client apparatus, the target word in the user query with the replacement word. [i.e. same identified abstract idea for claim # 1 above – organizing, analyzing and manipulation of information]
As per claim 3. The method of claim 2, wherein the client apparatus detects the target word in the user query using a pre-built learning model. [i.e. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)]
As per claim 4. The method of claim 2, wherein the client apparatus determines that a word having an embedding value that is most similar to the embedding value of the target word in a table, in which a plurality of words and embedding values of the plurality of words are stored, is the replacement word. [i.e. same identified abstract idea for claim # 1 above – analyzing and manipulation of information]
As per claim 5. The method of claim 1, further comprising storing, by the client apparatus, the target word and the replacement word in a table, wherein, when the replacement word is present in the answer, the client apparatus refers to the table and replaces the replacement word with the target word corresponding to the replacement word. [i.e. same identified abstract idea for claim # 1 above – analyzing and manipulation of information]
As per claim 7. The client apparatus of claim 6, wherein the computation device detects the target word in the received user query using a pre-built learning model. [i.e. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)]
As per claim 8. The client apparatus of claim 6, wherein: the storage device stores a plurality of words and embedding values of the plurality of words; and the computation device determines that a word having an embedding value that is most similar to an embedding value of the target word in the table is the replacement word. [i.e. same identified abstract idea for claim # 1 above – analyzing and manipulation of information]
As per claim 9. The client apparatus of claim 8, wherein the embedding value is a value in which noise is included. [i.e. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)]
As per claim 10. The client apparatus of claim 6, wherein the storage device stores the target word and the replacement word in a table, and when the replacement word is present in the answer, the computation device refers to the table and replaces the replacement word with the target word corresponding to the replacement word. [i.e. same identified abstract idea for claim # 1 above – analyzing and manipulation of information]
Appropriate action required.
Double Patenting
NO rejections warranted at applicant’s initial time of filing for patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
NO rejections warranted at applicant’s initial time of filing for patent.
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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. [US PGPUB # 2021/0326537] in view of Kamyshenko et al. [US PGPUB # 2025/0390603]
As per claim 1. Liu does teach a method of providing an artificial intelligence (Al)-based service [paragraph: 0007, lines 1 – 8, In an embodiment of the present disclosure, a method may be provided for secure translation of digital content. In the method, content of a file may be segmented into a plurality of sections of text. At least one section of text includes an item of sensitive content and items of nonsensitive content. The item of sensitive content may be replaced with replacement content, which enables translation of the at least one section of text without use of the sensitive content.], the method comprising:
receiving, by a client apparatus, a user query [Figure # 6, and paragraph: 0088, lines 3 – 12, The second module is a receiving module 630. The receiving module 630 may be configured to receive a file (or a portion thereof) or text from a client device. For example, the client device may upload a file (e.g., a document, an article) to the computing device. A user may also copy the text in the client device to the computing device. The user may determine whether certain information in the file needs to be redacted or replaced before, during, or after the uploading process of the file.];
performing, by the client apparatus, preprocessing on the user query to replace a target word corresponding to personal information in the user query with a corresponding replacement word [Figure # 6, and paragraph: 0088, lines 3 – 12, The second module is a receiving module 630. The receiving module 630 may be configured to receive a file (or a portion thereof) or text from a client device. For example, the client device may upload a file (e.g., a document, an article) to the computing device. A user may also copy the text in the client device to the computing device. The user may determine whether certain information in the file needs to be redacted or replaced before, during, or after the uploading process of the file. If the user intends to have certain sensitive information replaced with nonsensitive identifiers, the computing device may provide a list of policy files for the user to select.]; and
replacing, by the client apparatus, the replacement word in an answer corresponding to the user query that is received from the service server with the target word corresponding thereto [Figure # 7 and paragraph: 0108, In step 709, the computing device may receive translations of sections of text from translation engines [i.e. applicant’s…answer].
Then further of Liu, at Figure # 7 and paragraph: 0109, In step 711, the computing device may modify the nonsensitive identifiers by changing them back to the corresponding identified items of sensitive information. For example, the computing device may restore the sensitive information based on the policy files comprising the mapping rules. Therefore, the computing device may revert the nonsensitive identifiers back to the original sensitive information in the text (or a translated version thereof).].
While Liu does not clearly teach the claim limitation of: “transmitting, by the client apparatus, the preprocessed user query to a service server for providing an Al-based service.”
However, Kamyshenko does teach the claim limitation of: “transmitting, by the client apparatus, the preprocessed user query to a service server for providing an Al-based service [paragraph: 0057, 1. Receiving a request to access an AI resource. In various exemplary embodiments, an AI resource may function as the AI resource of a plurality of AI programs, knowing the optimal AI program to which to direct a query. Criteria such as data quality, performance, or security may be used to make such decisions.
Then further of Kamyshenko, at paragraph: 0058, In various exemplary embodiments, a browser widget may be employed that would resemble a large language model application like ChatGPT for entering a query. The widget may also include an enterprise policy control interface.
Then further of Kamyshenko, at paragraph: 0059, 2. Sanitizing the request of personally identifiable information, trade secret information, HIPAA information, GDPR information, and other sensitive information. Additionally, transformation of requests may also be automatically performed, such as the elimination of hyphens from social security numbers. The possibilities are limitless and may be defined by the users or customers.
Then further of Kamyshenko, at paragraph: 0060, 3. Transmit the request to the AI resource. In some situations, the request may be in the form of an automated request for a dataset. In other embodiments, the request may be defined by a customer.
Then further of Kamyshenko, at paragraph: 0062, 4. Receive a response to the request from the AI resource.].”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Liu and Kamyshenko in order for the detecting or determination of sensitive information in data to and from the client device of Liu to include a privacy risk score operation of Kamyshenko. This would allow for the client device to calculate and quantify the risk associated with the detected sensitive data, if such data were to be exposed. See paragraph: 0063 of Kamyshenko.
As per claim 5. Liu does teach the method of claim 1, further comprising storing, by the client apparatus, the target word and the replacement word in a table, wherein, when the replacement word is present in the answer, the client apparatus refers to the table and replaces the replacement word with the target word corresponding to the replacement word [Liu, Figure # 7 and paragraph: 0108, In step 709, the computing device may receive translations of sections of text from translation engines [i.e. applicant’s…answer].
Then further of Liu, at Figure # 7 and paragraph: 0109, In step 711, the computing device may modify the nonsensitive identifiers by changing them back to the corresponding identified items of sensitive information. For example, the computing device may restore the sensitive information based on the policy files comprising the mapping rules. Therefore, the computing device may revert the nonsensitive identifiers back to the original sensitive information in the text (or a translated version thereof).].
As per apparatus claim 6, that includes the same or similar claim limitations as method claim 1, and is similarly rejected.
***The examiner notes that applicant’s recited: “client apparatus,” “interface device,” “communication device,” and “processor” is taught by the prior art of Liu at: paragraphs: 0008, lines 3 - 6, 0009, 0035, lines 1 – 5, 0035, lines 13 – 17, 0071, lines 13 – 18, 0148, lines 1 – 6, respectively.
As per claim 7. Liu does teach the client apparatus of claim 6, wherein the processor is configured to detect the target word in the received user query using a pre-built learning model [Liu, Figure # 6, and paragraph: 0089, The computing device 601 may identify one or more items of sensitive information after the user has input the file. For example, the computing device 601 may store a list of sensitive words and phrases in the memory and automatically redact or replace those sensitive words and phrases in the file].
Claim(s) 2, 3, 4, 8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. [US PGPUB # 2021/0326537] in view of Kamyshenko et al. [US PGPUB # 2025/0390603] as applied to claim[s] 1 above, and further in view of Wu et al. [US PGPUB # 2017/0116436]
As per claim 2. Liu and Kamyshenko does teach what is taught in the rejection of claim # 1, above.
Further Liu does teach the method of claim 1, wherein the performing of the preprocessing includes:
detecting, by the client apparatus, the target word in the user query;
embedding, by the client apparatus, the target word.
See the rejection of claim 1 above.
Liu and Kamyshenko do not clearly teach determining, by the client apparatus, the replacement word based on an embedding value of the target word; and
replacing, by the client apparatus, the target word in the user query with the replacement word.
However, Wu does teach determining, by the client apparatus, the replacement word based on an embedding value of the target word; and
replacing, by the client apparatus, the target word in the user query with the replacement word [Wu, paragraph: 0107, PRS server 235 [i.e. applicant’s…client apparatus] may provide data residency by preventing data that meets certain conditions, e.g., sensitive data, from leaving enterprise infrastructure system 225. PRS server 235 can identify specific pieces of data from the data transmission that meet the conditions, save the specific pieces of data to the private database 240, generate replacement values (e.g., encryption values or tokens) for the real values of the identified specific pieces of data, and send the generated replacement values to the cloud-based application 245.].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Liu as modified and Wu in order for the detecting or determination of sensitive information in data to and from the client device of Liu as modified to include a calculation token replacement operation of Wu. This would allow for the detected sensitive data to be replaced with a randomized token, that is generated by a formula to which there is no key to exploit to recover the sensitive data, if illegally compromised. See paragraph: 0004 of Wu.
As per claim 3. Liu does teach the method of claim 2, wherein the client apparatus detects the target word in the user query using a pre-built learning model [Liu, Figure # 6, and paragraph: 0089, The computing device 601 may identify one or more items of sensitive information after the user has input the file. For example, the computing device 601 may store a list of sensitive words and phrases in the memory and automatically redact or replace those sensitive words and phrases in the file].
As per claim 4. Liu as modified does teach the method of claim 2, wherein the client apparatus determines that a word having an embedding value that is most similar to the embedding value of the target word in a table, in which a plurality of words and embedding values of the plurality of words are stored, is the replacement word [Wu, paragraph: 0107, PRS server 235 may provide data residency by preventing data that meets certain conditions, e.g., sensitive data, from leaving enterprise infrastructure system 225. PRS server 235 can identify specific pieces of data from the data transmission that meet the conditions, save the specific pieces of data to the private database 240, generate replacement values (e.g., encryption values or tokens) for the real values of the identified specific pieces of data, and send the generated replacement values to the cloud-based application 245.].
As per claim 8. Liu as modified does teach the client apparatus of claim 6, further comprising:
a storage device configured to store a plurality of words and embedding values of the plurality of words, wherein the processor is configured to determine that a word having an embedding value that is most similar to an embedding value of the target word in the table is the replacement word [Wu, paragraph: 0107, PRS server 235 may provide data residency by preventing data that meets certain conditions, e.g., sensitive data, from leaving enterprise infrastructure system 225. PRS server 235 can identify specific pieces of data from the data transmission that meet the conditions, save the specific pieces of data to the private database 240, generate replacement values (e.g., encryption values or tokens) for the real values of the identified specific pieces of data, and send the generated replacement values to the cloud-based application 245. The real values for the identified specific pieces of data remain resident locally in the private database 240, which may be governed by local statutes and operate under corporate policy].
As per claim 10. Liu as modified does teach the client apparatus of claim 6, further comprising:
a storage device configured to store the target word and the replacement word in a table, wherein the processor is configured to refer to the table and replace the replacement word with the target word corresponding to the replacement word when the replacement word is present in the answer [Wu, Figure # 2, and paragraph: 0108, lines 22 – 27, At the same time, PRS server 235 can generate a random unique set of characters (the token) and return the token for use in place of the real data. PRS server 235 (or private database 240) can maintain a reference database that allows the token value to be exchanged for the real data when it is needed again.].
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. [US PGPUB # 2021/0326537] in view of Kamyshenko et al. [US PGPUB # 2025/0390603] and Wu et al. [US PGPUB # 2017/0116436] as applied to claim[s] 8 above, and further in view of Khan et al. [US PGPUB # 2021/0279367]
As per claim 9. Liu and Kamyshenko and Khan does teach what is taught in the rejection of claim # 8 above.
Liu and Kamyshenko and Khan do not clearly teach the client apparatus of claim 8, wherein the embedding value is a value in which noise is included.
However, Khan does teach the client apparatus of claim 8, wherein the embedding value is a value in which noise is included [paragraph: 0015, Anonymization or de-identification of the dataset may be performed using various methods, including but not limited to, deleting direct personal identifiers in the dataset, replacing identifiers with tokens, perturbing and shuffling the values, generalizing and/or adding noise based on differential privacy methods.].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Liu as modified and Khan in order for the detecting or determination of sensitive information in data to and from the client device of Liu as modified to include a privacy risk score operation of Khan. This would allow for the client device to calculate and quantify the risk associated with the detected sensitive data, if such data were to be exposed. See paragraph: 0014 of Khan.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bin et al. [US PAT # 12210640], who does teach managing sensitive local data for a global application in compliance with local data residency requirements. In a first location having data residency requirements, the system receives a write request for a record, determines that the record includes both sensitive and non-sensitive data, stores the sensitive data in a local storage device, creates masked data corresponding to the sensitive data, creates a modified record that includes the masked data, the local storage ID of the sensitive data, and the non-sensitive data, and sends the modified record to a global application for storage in a second location.
Yu et al. [US PGPUB # 2024/0214332], who does teach generating key words and types associated with the key words based on input text received through a user interface device. An intent associated with the input text is classified based on the generated key words and the types. Information is searched based on the classified intent and one of the key words. The searched information and the key words are displayed on a display of the user interface device. A visual effect is added for indicating whether a key word of the key words is used for the searching on the display of the user interface device.
Goel et al. [US PGPUB # 2019/0214060], who does teach automatically masking data for display in a mobile computing device. The computer-implemented method includes receiving a request to display data on the mobile computing device and detecting a physical location of the mobile computing device, a time corresponding to the request, and at least one network characteristic of a wireless network on which the mobile computing device is making the request. The method also includes automatically determining whether to mask the data for display in the mobile computing device based on the physical location, the time, and the at least one network characteristic.
Yang et al. [US PGPUB # 20210209304], who does teach a server, a client device, and operation methods thereof for training a language model. The server, the client device, and the operation methods thereof identify a word or phrase including a named entity that is incorrectly pronounced by a user or is difficult for the user to accurately pronounce from an input text for use in training a natural language understanding (NLU) model, generate text candidates for use in training the NLU model by replacing the identified word or phrase with a word or phrase predicted to be uttered by the user and having high phonetic similarity to the identified word or phrase, and train the NLU model by using the generated text candidates.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANT SHAIFER - HARRIMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7910. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 9am to 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kambiz Zand can be reached at 571- 272- 3811. 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.
/DANT B SHAIFER HARRIMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2434