DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the filing 04/20/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been fully examined.
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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 5 and 16 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-4, 6-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 1-4, 6-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process. The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application because the claims generally link abstract ideas to a generic computer. The claims to not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they include mental processes on a generic computer without creating a significant, novel improvement or change to the computer.
Claim 1
Claim 1 recites,
Comparing … the time series to a second time series of data… This limitation recites a step of comparing numerical values (scaler values) to (existing) numerical values. This is an act of evaluating information that can be practically performed in the human mind and therefore recites a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
identifying … presence of one or more anomalies based on the comparison… This limitation recites a step of using the act of performing a comparison to identify anomalies. This is an act of evaluating information that can be practically performed in the human mind and therefore recites a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional Elements
Claim 1 additionally recites,
assigning … one or more data to one or more windows based on one or more group level characteristics of the one or more data, This limitation merely describes formatting data into windows according to descriptive data. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
wherein the group level characteristics include impacted data centers, configurable item category, impacted locations, impacted line of businesses, and impacted alert sources; This limitation merely describes the contents of data. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Assigning … the one or more data to one or more sub-windows based on one or more time stamps, the one or more sub-windows inside the windows; This limitation merely describes formatting data into sub windows by time. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Creating … a data count for each of the sub-windows, wherein the data count is a scalar value; This limitation merely describes formatting data dimensionally or graphically (time by data count, see specification [0111]). Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Creating … a first time series from the data count of each of the sub-windows, wherein the first time series of the data is a real-time synchronous time series of data; This limitation merely describes formatting or arranging data as a time series. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
alerting … a user to the presence of one or more anomalies based on a result of the comparison; This limitation merely describes outputting data in the form of an alert at a high level of generality. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
modifying the second time series based on the first time series. This limitation merely describes making a modification to (existing) data, recited at a high level of generality. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 1 further recites [bolded items addressed, non-bolded items are merely provided for context],
assigning, by one or more processors, one or more data … assigning, by the one or more processors, the one or more data … creating, by the one or more processors, a data count … creating, by the one or more processors, a first time series … comparing, by the one or more processors, the time series … identifying, by the one or more processors, presence of one or more anomalies … alerting, by the one or more processors, a user…; Merely performing the above steps on a computer in its ordinary capacity for tasks or merely adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f)(2). The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B: Significantly More
Claim 1 additionally recites,
assigning … one or more data to one or more windows based on one or more group level characteristics of the one or more data, This limitation merely describes formatting data into windows according to descriptive data. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
wherein the group level characteristics include impacted data centers, configurable item category, impacted locations, impacted line of businesses, and impacted alert sources; This limitation merely describes the contents of data. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Assigning … the one or more data to one or more sub-windows based on one or more time stamps, the one or more sub-windows inside the windows; This limitation merely describes formatting data into sub windows by time. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Creating … a data count for each of the sub-windows, wherein the data count is a scalar value; This limitation merely describes formatting data dimensionally or graphically (time by data count, see specification [0111]). Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Creating … a first time series from the data count of each of the sub-windows, wherein the first time series of the data is a real-time synchronous time series of data; This limitation merely describes formatting or arranging data as a time series. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
alerting … a user to the presence of one or more anomalies based on a result of the comparison; This limitation merely describes outputting data in the form of an alert at a high level of generality. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
modifying the second time series based on the first time series. This limitation merely describes making a modification to (existing) data, recited at a high level of generality. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 1 further recites [bolded items addressed, non-bolded items are merely provided for context and have been previously addressed],
assigning, by one or more processors, one or more data … assigning, by the one or more processors, the one or more data … creating, by the one or more processors, a data count … creating, by the one or more processors, a first time series … comparing, by the one or more processors, the time series … identifying, by the one or more processors, presence of one or more anomalies … alerting, by the one or more processors, a user…; Merely performing the above steps on a computer in its ordinary capacity for tasks or merely adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f)(2). The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 2 recites,
wherein the method is implemented using an application programming interface with a unified stream-processing and batch-processing framework.
This limitation merely describes performing a method using an application programming interface with specifications for real-time stream data processing, as performed in the above method. Merely performing the above claimed steps on a computer in its ordinary capacity for tasks or merely adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f)(2). The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 3 recites,
wherein the sub-windows are fixed size, non-overlapping, contiguous time interval windows.
This claim merely provides information on the data formatting steps performed in the above claim. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 4 recites,
wherein the sub-windows are sliding windows.
This claim merely provides information on the data formatting steps performed in the above claim. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 6 recites,
wherein the one or more windows is seven days.
This claim merely provides information on the data formatting steps performed in the above claim. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 7 recites,
wherein the one or more windows is twenty-four hours.
This claim merely provides information on the data formatting steps performed in the above claim. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 8 recites,
wherein a time interval of the one or more sub-windows is five minutes or less.
This claim merely provides information on the data formatting steps performed in the above claim. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 9 recites,
wherein the second time series is a mathematical average of previously collected time series data.
This claim merely provides information on the data formatting steps performed in the above claim. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 10 recites,
wherein the comparing comprises comparing the first time series with the second time series at every sub-window interval.
This claim merely recites a further feature of the comparing-abstract idea of Claim 1 and does not provide further features beyond the time at which the comparison occurs. Therefore, Claim 10 recites the abstract idea of Claim 1, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 11 recites,
wherein the comparing comprising comparing the first time series with the second time series at a user specified time interval.
This claim merely recites further elements of the comparing-abstract idea of Claim 1 and does not provide further features beyond the time at which the comparison occurs. Therefore, Claim 11 recites the abstract idea of Claim 1, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 12
Step 1: Claim 12 recites a method.
Step 2A Prong 1: Abstract Idea
Claim 12 recites,
identifying … one or more repeated patterns in the first time series of data using a value of the matrix profile at one or more times; This limitation recites performing an identification to identify repeated patterns using known data. This is an act of evaluating information that can be practically performed in the human mind and therefore recites a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
identifying … one or more top discords in the first time series of data using a value of the matrix profile at the one or more times; This limitation recites performing an identification to identify discords in known data. This is an act of evaluating information that can be practically performed in the human mind and therefore recites a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Stopping … one or more false alerts from being sent based on a determination that the first time series of data is made up of the one or more repeated patterns; This limitation recites determining to not output data based on the act of performing identification to identify repeated patterns. This is an act of determination that can be practically performed in the human mind and therefore recites a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional Elements
Claim 12 additionally recites,
Storing … one or more distance profiles of one or more subsequences for a first time series of data, into a matrix profile that is a vector; This limitation merely describes storing data and the format of the data. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
storing … one or more minimum distances between each of the one or more subsequences into the matrix profile; This limitation merely describes storing data a feature of data. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Outputting … one or more alerts based on identification of top discords, wherein the one or more top discords comprise sudden spikes or sudden drops. This limitation merely describes outputting data in the form of an alert at a high level of generality and describes the content of data. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 12 further recites [bolded items addressed, non-bolded items are merely provided for context and have been previously addressed],
storing, by one or more processors, one or more distance profiles … storing, by the one or more processors, one or more minimum … identifying, by the one or more processors, one or more repeated patterns … identifying, by the one or more processors, one or more top discords … stopping, by the one or more processors, one or more false alerts … outputting, by the one or more processors, one or more alerts … Merely performing the above steps on a computer in its ordinary capacity for tasks or merely adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f)(2). The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B: Significantly More
Claim 12 additionally recites,
Storing … one or more distance profiles of one or more subsequences for a first time series of data, into a matrix profile that is a vector; This limitation merely describes storing data and the format of the data. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
storing … one or more minimum distances between each of the one or more subsequences into the matrix profile; This limitation merely describes storing data a feature of data. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Outputting … one or more alerts based on identification of top discords, wherein the one or more top discords comprise sudden spikes or sudden drops. This limitation merely describes outputting data in the form of an alert at a high level of generality and describes the content of data. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 12 further recites [bolded items addressed, non-bolded items are merely provided for context and have been previously addressed],
storing, by one or more processors, one or more distance profiles … storing, by the one or more processors, one or more minimum … identifying, by the one or more processors, one or more repeated patterns … identifying, by the one or more processors, one or more top discords … stopping, by the one or more processors, one or more false alerts … outputting, by the one or more processors, one or more alerts … Merely performing the above steps on a computer in its ordinary capacity for tasks or merely adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f)(2). The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 13 recites,
wherein the matrix profile allows a comparison of one or more time period’s data value to previously collected time period’s data value to identify if the one or more time period is having a unique flow of data compared to the previously collected time period data.
This limitation describes using existing formatted data to perform a comparison in order to identify discrepancies between a first and second data ("unique flow of data"). This is an act of evaluating information that can be practically performed in the human mind and therefore recites a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 14 recites,
wherein the one or more repeated patterns comprise spikes or drops.
This claim merely describes a type of content of the data. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 15 recites,
wherein a matrix profile with a lower value corresponds with identification of one or more repeated patterns.
This claim merely recites further elements of the identifying-abstract idea of Claim 12 and does not provide further features beyond the meaning of the comparison results. Therefore, Claim 15 recites the abstract idea of Claim 12, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 17 recites,
wherein a higher value matrix profile corresponds with identification of one or more top discords.
This claim merely recites further elements of the identifying-abstract idea of Claim 12 and does not provide further features beyond the meaning of the comparison results. Therefore, Claim 17 recites the abstract idea of Claim 12, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 18 recites,
wherein a higher value matrix profile indicates to a user, a higher likelihood that an area that appears anomalous is actually anomalous compared to areas that are not anomalous; and a lower likelihood that an identified area is the type of data expected to be seen or seen before compared to previously time series of data.
These limitations merely describes the meaning of the content of formatted data. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 19 recites,
The method of claim 12, wherein the method is implemented using an application programming interface with a unified stream-processing and batch-processing framework.
This limitation merely describes performing a method using an application programming interface with specifications for real-time stream data processing, as performed in the above method. Merely performing the above claimed steps on a computer in its ordinary capacity for tasks or merely adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f)(2). The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 20 recites a shift in statutory category and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as containing the same abstract ideas as claims 1 and 12. Additionally, Claim 20 recites,
the system comprising: a memory having processor-readable instructions stored therein; and at least one processor configured to access the memory and execute the processor-readable instructions to perform operations including…
Merely performing the above step on a computer in its ordinary capacity for tasks or merely adding a general-purpose computer or computer components, i.e. a memory and processor, after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f)(2). The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 04/20/2026 have been fully considered.
The Examiner acknowledges the amendment to Claim 18 overcoming the previous objection to informalities, accordingly the objection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 11-13 of the remarks regarding the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Examiner acknowledges that the previous subject matter of Claim 5, with no prior art rejection, has been amended into Claim 1; the subject matter of “the group level characteristics include impacted data centers, configurable item category, impacted locations, impacted line of businesses, and impacted alert sources” as recited in Claim 1 is not taught by prior art without impermissible hindsight reasoning. Similarly, the previous subject matter of Claim 16, with no art rejection, has been amended into Claims 12 and 20; the subject matter of “wherein the one or more top discords comprise sudden spikes or sudden drops” is not taught by prior art without impermissible hindsight reasoning. The previous art rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 7-11 of the remarks regarding the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been fully considered and is not persuasive. The Applicant cites the 2019 PEG, specifically citing [in bold]: “If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes category unless the claim cannot practically be performed in the mind. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer- implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’).” The Examiner points to MPEP2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) as reciting similar material. The claimed comparison and identification performed on time-series data is recited at a high level of generality and may be performed in the human mind; broadly recited “one or more processors” are merely generic computer components. The Applicant specifically argues that “it is plainly not practical to mentally perform steps such as
[1] creating, by the one or more processors, a first time series from the data count of each of the sub-windows, wherein the first time series of the data is a real-time synchronous time series of data;
[2] comparing, by the one or more processors, the time series to a second time series of data, wherein the second time series of data is previous time series data;
[3] identifying, by the one or more processors, presence of one or more anomalies based on the comparison of first time series to the second time series, wherein the comparison is based on comparison of the scalar values;
[4] alerting, by the one or more processors, a user to the presence of one or more anomalies based on a result of the comparison” (enumerated and tabulated for clarity) on pg. 9.
Items [1] and [4] are not identified as being abstract elements in the form of a mental process, please see the above rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 and the previous rejection dated 01/20/2026. The acts of comparing numerical time-series data and forming an opinion on the comparison [2 & 3] may be performed by the human mind. The amendment reciting “by the one or more processors” is merely performing the above steps on a computer in its ordinary capacity or adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact and does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application or provide significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite a mental process performed by humans and claims that recite a mental process performed on a computer, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREY E WHITESELL whose telephone number is (703)756-4767. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 5:00pm MST.
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 Bonzo can be reached at 5712723655. 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.
/A.E.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2113 /BRYCE P BONZO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights