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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites “[a] method comprising: obtaining monitoring log information corresponding to an edge device and a plurality of connected edge assets associated with the edge device; detecting, based on the monitoring log information, a plurality of faults for the edge device or for one or more connected edge assets of the plurality of connected edge assets; obtaining remediation information indicative of one or more remediation actions performed for individual faults or combinations of faults included in the plurality of faults; generating a hierarchical fault tree data structure mapping between the plurality of faults and the remediation information, wherein each fault of the plurality of faults corresponds to a root node or child node of the fault tree, and wherein each remediation action corresponds to a leaf node of the fault tree; providing an indication of one or more faults to a self-healing machine-learning (ML) or artificial intelligence (AI) engine configured to generate a corresponding fault remediation action based on traversing the hierarchical fault tree according to the indicated one or more faults; and outputting the fault remediation action for self-healing of the indicated one or more faults.”
The limitation of “detecting, based on the monitoring log information, a plurality of faults for the edge device or for one or more connected edge assets of the plurality of connected edge assets,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
The limitation of “generating a hierarchical fault tree data structure mapping between the plurality of faults and the remediation information, wherein each fault of the plurality of faults corresponds to a root node or child node of the fault tree, and wherein each remediation action corresponds to a leaf node of the fault tree,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “device,” “memory,” and “processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “device,” “memory,” and “processor” language, “detecting… [and] generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper detecting and generating data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element “device,” “memory,” and “processor” to enact detecting and generating. The device in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The claim recites “obtaining monitoring log information corresponding to an edge device and a plurality of connected edge assets associated with the edge device,” Extra-Solution Activity.
The claim recites “obtaining remediation information indicative of one or more remediation actions performed for individual faults or combinations of faults included in the plurality of faults,” Extra-Solution Activity.
The claim recites “providing an indication of one or more faults to a self-healing machine-learning (ML) or artificial intelligence (AI) engine configured to generate a corresponding fault remediation action based on traversing the hierarchical fault tree according to the indicated one or more faults,” Extra-Solution Activity.
The claim recites “outputting the fault remediation action for self-healing of the indicated one or more faults,” Extra-Solution Activity.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a device to enact the detecting and generating steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites “[t]he method of claim 1, further comprising: obtaining conformance information corresponding to one or more of the edge device, the plurality of connected edge assets, or an edge site deployment location of the edge device; and pruning the fault tree based on using the conformance information to remove leaf nodes corresponding to non-conforming remediation actions.”
The limitation of “pruning the fault tree based on using the conformance information to remove leaf nodes corresponding to non-conforming remediation actions,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “device,” “memory,” and “processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “device,” “memory,” and “processor” language, “detecting… [and] generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper detecting and generating data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element “device,” “memory,” and “processor” to enact detecting and generating. The device in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The claim recites “obtaining conformance information corresponding to one or more of the edge device, the plurality of connected edge assets, or an edge site deployment location of the edge device,” Extra-Solution Activity.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a device to enact the detecting and generating steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 recites “[t]he method of claim 2, wherein pruning the fault tree is based on analyzing the conformance information to a conformance validation engine.”
The limitation of “wherein pruning the fault tree is based on analyzing the conformance information to a conformance validation engine,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “device,” “memory,” and “processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “device,” “memory,” and “processor” language, “detecting… [and] generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper detecting and generating data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element “device,” “memory,” and “processor” to enact detecting and generating. The device in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a device to enact the detecting and generating steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 recites “[t]he method of claim 2, wherein the conformance information includes one or more conformance rules or conformance conditions corresponding to the edge site deployment location or inventory availability information for the edge site deployment location.”
The limitation of “wherein the conformance information includes one or more conformance rules or conformance conditions corresponding to the edge site deployment location or inventory availability information for the edge site deployment location,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “device,” “memory,” and “processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “device,” “memory,” and “processor” language, “detecting… [and] generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper detecting and generating data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element “device,” “memory,” and “processor” to enact detecting and generating. The device in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a device to enact the detecting and generating steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 recites “[t]he method of claim 2, wherein pruning the fault tree includes generating remediation prescription information indicative of a subset of conforming remediation actions included in the one or more remediation actions.”
The limitation of “wherein pruning the fault tree includes generating remediation prescription information indicative of a subset of conforming remediation actions included in the one or more remediation actions,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “device,” “memory,” and “processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “device,” “memory,” and “processor” language, “detecting… [and] generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper detecting and generating data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element “device,” “memory,” and “processor” to enact detecting and generating. The device in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a device to enact the detecting and generating steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 recites “[t]he method of claim 5, wherein the self-healing ML or AI engine generates the corresponding fault remediation action based on traversing a decision tree based on one or more of the fault tree or the remediation prescription.”
The limitation of “wherein the self-healing ML or AI engine generates the corresponding fault remediation action based on traversing a decision tree based on one or more of the fault tree or the remediation prescription,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “device,” “memory,” and “processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “device,” “memory,” and “processor” language, “detecting… [and] generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper detecting and generating data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element “device,” “memory,” and “processor” to enact detecting and generating. The device in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a device to enact the detecting and generating steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 recites “[t]he method of claim 1, further comprising: performing a first continuous learning process to update or refine a space of possible faults included in the plurality of faults; or performing a second continuous learning process to update or refine a space of possible remediation actions included in the one or more remediation actions.”
The limitation of “performing a first continuous learning process to update or refine a space of possible faults included in the plurality of faults; or performing a second continuous learning process to update or refine a space of possible remediation actions included in the one or more remediation actions,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “device,” “memory,” and “processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “device,” “memory,” and “processor” language, “detecting… [and] generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper detecting and generating data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element “device,” “memory,” and “processor” to enact detecting and generating. The device in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a device to enact the detecting and generating steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 recites “[t]he method of claim 7, further comprising: performing a third continuous learning process to update or refine the mapping between the plurality of faults and the remediation information; or performing a fourth continuous learning process to update or refine the fault map based on updated conformance information corresponding to a limited subset of permissible remediation actions for a deployment site location of the edge compute unit.”
The limitation of “performing a third continuous learning process to update or refine the mapping between the plurality of faults and the remediation information; or performing a fourth continuous learning process to update or refine the fault map based on updated conformance information corresponding to a limited subset of permissible remediation actions for a deployment site location of the edge compute unit,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “device,” “memory,” and “processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “device,” “memory,” and “processor” language, “detecting… [and] generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper detecting and generating data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element “device,” “memory,” and “processor” to enact detecting and generating. The device in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a device to enact the detecting and generating steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 recites “[t]he method of claim 1, wherein detecting the plurality of faults includes: analyzing the monitoring log information using one or more hardware failure machine learning models, wherein the one or more hardware failure machine learning models generate as output failure probability information corresponding to at least a portion of the plurality of faults.”
The limitation of “wherein detecting the plurality of faults includes: analyzing the monitoring log information using one or more hardware failure machine learning models, wherein the one or more hardware failure machine learning models generate as output failure probability information corresponding to at least a portion of the plurality of faults,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “device,” “memory,” and “processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “device,” “memory,” and “processor” language, “detecting… [and] generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper detecting and generating data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element “device,” “memory,” and “processor” to enact detecting and generating. The device in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a device to enact the detecting and generating steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 recites “[t]he method of claim 9, wherein the one or more hardware failure machine learning models are configured to generate failure probability information corresponding to one or more of: single-event upset (SEU) hardware faults, single-event transient (SET) hardware faults, stuck-at-fault or delay-fault hardware fault events, or thermal modeling hardware fault events.”
The limitation of “wherein the one or more hardware failure machine learning models are configured to generate failure probability information corresponding to one or more of: single-event upset (SEU) hardware faults, single-event transient (SET) hardware faults, stuck-at-fault or delay-fault hardware fault events, or thermal modeling hardware fault events,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “device,” “memory,” and “processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “device,” “memory,” and “processor” language, “detecting… [and] generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper detecting and generating data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element “device,” “memory,” and “processor” to enact detecting and generating. The device in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a device to enact the detecting and generating steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 recites “[t]he method of claim 9, further comprising updating the hierarchical fault tree data structure based on the generated failure probability information determined using the one or more hardware failure machine learning models.”
The limitation of “updating the hierarchical fault tree data structure based on the generated failure probability information determined using the one or more hardware failure machine learning models,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “device,” “memory,” and “processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “device,” “memory,” and “processor” language, “detecting… [and] generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper detecting and generating data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element “device,” “memory,” and “processor” to enact detecting and generating. The device in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a device to enact the detecting and generating steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 recites “[t]he method of claim 11, further comprising updating the hierarchical fault tree data structure based on a comparison between predicted faults corresponding to the generated failure probability information, and observed faults determined from the monitoring log information.”
The limitation of “updating the hierarchical fault tree data structure based on a comparison between predicted faults corresponding to the generated failure probability information, and observed faults determined from the monitoring log information,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “device,” “memory,” and “processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “device,” “memory,” and “processor” language, “detecting… [and] generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper detecting and generating data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element “device,” “memory,” and “processor” to enact detecting and generating. The device in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a device to enact the detecting and generating steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 13-20 are rejected based on similar rationale given to claims 1-8, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sethi et al. US 2025/0123915 [Abstract, Background, and Summary]
Dubyak et al. US 10,776,409 [Abstract, Background, and Summary]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN D GIBSON whose telephone number is (571)431-0699. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 A.M.-4:00 P.M..
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, BRYCE P BONZO can be reached at (571)-272-3655. 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.
/JONATHAN D GIBSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113