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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: “augmenting the first listing with the listing information. Converting the indicator image content to indicator text;…” It appears that the period after the listing information is intended to be a semicolon. Appropriate correction is required.
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 a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the eligibility analysis the claims are directed to statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03. Specifically, the system, as claimed in claims 1-8, is directed to a machine. Additionally, the machine-storage medium, as claimed in claims 9-15, is directed to an apparatus. Finally, the method, as claimed in claims 16-20, is directed to the process.
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis (MPEP 2106.04), the claimed invention recites the abstract idea of augmenting a first listing based on a second listing. Specifically, representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
Receiving an image content of a first item associated with a first listing;
Extracting a first vector representation comprising a first characteristic form the image content;
Searching for a second vector representation comprising a second characteristic using the first vector representation, the category corpus comprising second vector representations associated with the second items;
Comparing the first characteristic with the second characteristic;
Determining a match between the first vector representation and the second vector representation based on comparing the first characteristic with the second characteristic, the second characteristic being associated with a second item associated with a second listing;
Augmenting the first listing based on the second listing; and
Displaying the augmented first listing.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a). The abstract idea identified above is considered to be a certain method of organizing human activity. Certain methods of organizing human activity include “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).”” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). In this case, the abstract idea recited in representative claim 1 is a certain method of organizing human activity because receiving an image content of a first item associated with a first listing, extracting a first vector representation, comprising a first characteristic, searching for a second vector representation comprising a second characteristic, comparing first and second characteristics, determining a match, augmenting a first listing, and displaying the augmented first listing is a commercial or legal interaction because it is a sales activity and/or relates to business relations. Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Additionally, the abstract idea identified above is also considered to be a mental process. Mental processes are "concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)". MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). In this case, comparing the first characteristic with the second characteristic and determining a match is a type of observation and evaluation. Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. MPEP 2106.04(d). The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application include limitations merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.04(d). In this case, representative claim 1 includes additional elements such as a system, at least one processor, memory, a category corpus. Although reciting such additional elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant's specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. Similar to the limitations of Alice, representative claim 1 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e., providing an augmented item listing) being applied on a general-purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the claimed additional elements are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Since the additional elements merely include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). MPEP 2106.05. In this case, as noted above, the additional elements recited in independent claim 1 are recited and described in a generic manner merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of representative claim 1 do not add anything that is not already present when they considered individually. In Alice, the court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components...‘ad[d] nothing. ..that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’... [and] [v]iewed as a whole...[the] claims simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, when viewed as a whole, representative claim 1 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in representative claim 1 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As such, representative claim 1 is ineligible.
Dependent Claims 2-8 do not aid in the eligibility of independent claim 1. For example, claims 2-8 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, it is noted that certain dependent claims include additional elements supplemental to those recited in independent claim 1: audio component (claim 7). However, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea These additional elements are merely generic elements and are likewise described in a generic manner in Applicant’s specification. Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-6 and 8 do not recite additional elements supplemental those recited in claim 1. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons described above with respect to claim 1.
Thus, dependent claims 2-8 are also ineligible.
Independent claims 9 and 16 recite the same abstract idea represented in representative claim 1. In addition to the additional elements of claim 1, Independent Claim 9 recites the additional elements a machine storage medium. The additional elements in Independent claims 9 and 16 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons described above with respect to claim 1.
Similarly, the dependent claims 10-15 and 17-20 do not recite additional elements supplemental those recited in claims 2-8. Therefore, the additional elements to not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons described above with respect to claims 2-8, respectively.
Thus, dependent claims 10-15 and 17-20 are also ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7, 9, 12, 14, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Periyathambi et al. (US 2023/0206314) in view of Shanker et al. (US 2024/0242260).
Regarding Claims 1, 9, and 16, Periyathambi discloses A system comprising: at least one processor; and memory comprising instructions that when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform operations comprising: (See at least paragraph [0003] disclosing system and method for generating listings, [0004] disclosing system comprised of processor and memory, [0006] disclosing computer storage medium)
receiving an image content of a first item associated with a first listing (See at least Abstract disclosing obtaining images from video stream with the respective listings, Fig. 5 disclosing receiving video depicting items to be listed in electronic marketplace, paragraph [0016] disclosing identifying from video items user wishes to list for sale);
extracting a first vector representation comprising a first characteristic from the image content (See at least paragraph [0022] disclosing the listing application may generate, based on information gleaned from the video a vector representation of the item, [0031] disclosing item representation (e.g., a vector) generated using images, attributes, textual descriptions, etc. gleaned form the content of the video, [0038], [0048]);
searching a category corpus for a second item comprising a second characteristic using the first the first vector representation (See at least paragraph [0038], [0048] disclosing searching product catalog with item representations of first item to find similar items);
comparing the first characteristic with the second characteristic (See at least paragraph [0022] disclosing using attributes, descriptions, from one or more matching product entries to populate fields of the listing for the item, [0048] disclosing similar items listed may be used to generate listing based on attributes associated with similar items);
augmenting the first listing based on the second listing (See at least paragraph [0016] disclosing listing application may find similar items listed and obtain additional item attributes based on similar items listed in the electronic marketplace and include the additional attributes in the listings generated for the items in the video, [0022], [0032], [0038], [0048]);
displaying the augmented first listing (See at least paragraph [0016] disclosing generated listings may be displayed).
Periyathambi does not expressly provide for searching a category corpus for a second vector representation comprising a second characteristic using the first vector representation, the category corpus comprising second vector representations associated with the second items; and determining a match between the first vector representation the second vector representation based on comparing the first characteristic with the second characteristic, the second characteristic being associated with a second item associated with a second listing.
However, Shanker discloses searching a category corpus for a second vector representation comprising a second characteristic using the first vector representation, the category corpus comprising second vector representations associated with the second items; (See at least paragraph [0003] disclosing image bedding vectors generated and then visual similarity search component references embeddings for product images that are precomputed and store din database to identify products which are visually similar to items identified in the image, [0004] disclosing comparing/searching database catalog of item embedding vectors using embedding vector of the item, [0006], [0026] disclosing comparing embedding vectors generated with embedding vectors for product images that are precomputed and store din item catalog embedding vector database, [0037]) and determining a match between the first vector representation the second vector representation based on comparing the first characteristic with the second characteristic, the second characteristic being associated with a second item associated with a second listing (See at least paragraph [0004] disclosing comparing vectors and similarities between attributes, [0006], [0101] disclosing vector similarity, Fig. 5 & Fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included searching and comparing first and second vectors as taught by Shanker in the listing system of Periyathambi because it would be less costly and time-consuming for user to be able to find similar images/items based on item in a current image. See at least paragraph [0002], [0003].
Regarding Claims 4 and 12, Periyathambi and Shanker teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 1 and 9. Additionally, Peryathambi discloses wherein the image content of the first item includes an indicator and the instructions further cause the system to perform operations comprising: generating listing information based on data associated with the indicator and augmenting the first listing with the listing information (See at least paragraph [0030] disclosing item attributes extracted from the content of the video for a particular item including brand, [0032] disclosing information such as images and item attributes gleaned from the video may be provided to the listing generate and utilized for generating listings, [0037], [0042]).
Regarding Claim 5, Periyathambi and Shanker teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 4. Additionally, Peryathambi discloses wherein the indicator includes an indicator image content and the instructions further cause the system to perform operations comprising: converting the indicator image content to indicator text; generating the listing information to include ethe indicator text; and augmenting the first listing with the indicator text (See at least paragraph [0030] disclosing item attributes extracted from the content of the video for a particular item including brand, model, size, etc., [0032] disclosing information such as images and item attributes gleaned from the video may be provided to the listing generate and utilized for generating listings, [0032] disclosing listing generator using attribute such a brand, model, color, etc. extracted from content of video to populate corresponding fields in a listing generator, [0037] disclosing indicator image content such as brand, color, etc. used as attribute pairs, [0042]).
Regarding Claim 7, Periyathambi and Shanker teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 4. Additionally, Peryathambi discloses wherein the image content is received with an audio component and the instructions further cause the system to perform operations comprising: extracting a first audio vector representation from the audio component, the first audio vector representation having a first audio characteristic; searching the category corpus for a second audio vector representation using the first audio vector representation, the second audio vector representation having a second audio characteristic; comparing the first audio characteristic with the second audio characteristic; determining a match between the first audio vector representation and the second audio vector representation based on comparing the first audio characteristic with the second audio characteristic; and augmenting the first listing based on first audio characteristic. (See at least paragraph [0003] disclosing audio descriptions of items in video, [0016] disclosing convert audio descriptions of the items in the video to text output including textual descriptions of the items, [0028] disclosing speech recognition engine to convert audio stream of video to text output, [0035], [0047], [0051], [0022] disclosing using attributes, descriptions, from one or more matching product entries to populate fields of the listing for the item, [0048] disclosing similar items listed may be used to generate listing based on attributes associated with similar items).
Claim(s) 2, 3, 6, 10, 11, 13, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Periyathambi et al. (US 2023/0206314) in view of Shanker et al. (US 2024/0242260), and further in view of Sussman et al. (US 2021/0334879).
Regarding Claims 2, 10, and 17, Periyathambi and Shanker teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 1, 9, and 16. However, neither Periyathambi nor Shanker expressly provide for wherein the second vector representations correlate to second listing frameworks, the second listing frameworks comprising types of listing information and the operation of augmenting the first listing based on the second listing comprises augmenting the first listing based on a second listing framework.
Sussman discloses wherein the second vector representations correlate to second listing frameworks, the second listing frameworks comprising types of listing information and the operation of augmenting the first listing based on the second listing comprises augmenting the first listing based on a second listing framework (See at least paragraph [0020] disclosing new product listings, [0046] disclosing receive information in certain format, [0067] disclosing provide template information to populate the template results, [0068]-[0069] disclosing formatting from numeric representation etc., [0093]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the framework use as taught by Sussman in the listing system of Periyathambi/Shanker because it would provide for better inventory management and data ingestion. See Sussman paragraphs [0002]-[0008].
Regarding Claims 3, 11, and 18, Periyathambi and Shanker teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 1, 9, and 16. However, Peryathambi does not expressly provide for receiving image contents of the second items; and extracting the second vector representations from the image contents of the second items . However, Shanker discloses receiving image contents of the second items; and extracting the second vector representations from the image contents of the second items (See at least paragraph [0003] disclosing embedding vectors being numerical representations of images based on pixel information, [0004], [0053] & [0057] disclosing using images and vectors to categorize items).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included searching and comparing first and second vectors as taught by Shanker in the listing system of Periyathambi because it would be less costly and time-consuming for user to be able to find similar images/items based on item in a current image. See at least paragraph [0002], [0003].
Neither Periyathambi nor Shanker expressly provide for generating second listing frameworks with the second vector representations for the category corpus. However, Sussman discloses generating second listing frameworks with the second vector representations for the category corpus (See at least paragraph [0069] disclosing data formats and organizational structure extracted from an image, [0093]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the framework use as taught by Sussman in the listing system of Periyathambi/Shanker because it would provide for better inventory management and data ingestion. See Sussman paragraphs [0002]-[0008].
Regarding Claim 6, Periyathambi and Shanker teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 5. However, neither Periyathambi nor Shanker expressly provide for determining a location associated with displaying the augmented first listing; converting the indicator text from a first format to a second format based on the location; and augmenting the first listing with the converted indicator text.
Sussman discloses determining a location associated with displaying the augmented first listing; converting the indicator text from a first format to a second format based on the location; and augmenting the first listing with the converted indicator text (See at least paragraph [0020] disclosing auto populating the new product listing, [0071]-[0072] disclosing mapping IDs which correlates field in data feed of particular merchant, retailer or other supplier to a field that is known to the system as part of system’s data structure to match specific channel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the framework use as taught by Sussman in the listing system of Periyathambi/Shanker because it would provide for better inventory management and data ingestion. See Sussman paragraphs [0002]-[0008].
Regarding Claim 13, Periyathambi and Shanker teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 12. Additionally, Periyathambi discloses wherein the indicator includes an indicator image content and the instructions further cause the system to perform operations comprising: converting the indicator image content to indicator text; generating the listing information to include ethe indicator text; and augmenting the first listing with the indicator text (See at least paragraph [0030] disclosing item attributes extracted from the content of the video for a particular item including brand, model, size, etc., [0032] disclosing information such as images and item attributes gleaned from the video may be provided to the listing generate and utilized for generating listings, [0032] disclosing listing generator using attribute such a brand, model, color, etc. extracted from content of video to populate corresponding fields in a listing generator, [0037] disclosing indicator image content such as brand, color, etc. used as attribute pairs, [0042]). However, neither Periyathambi nor Shanker expressly provide for determining a location associated with displaying the augmented first listing; converting the indicator text from a first format to a second format based on the location; and augmenting the first listing with the converted indicator text.
Sussman discloses determining a location associated with displaying the augmented first listing; converting the indicator text from a first format to a second format based on the location; and augmenting the first listing with the converted indicator text (See at least paragraph [0020] disclosing auto populating the new product listing, [0071]-[0072] disclosing mapping IDs which correlates field in data feed of particular merchant, retailer or other supplier to a field that is known to the system as part of system’s data structure to match specific channel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the framework use as taught by Sussman in the listing system of Periyathambi/Shanker because it would provide for better inventory management and data ingestion. See Sussman paragraphs [0002]-[0008].
Regarding Claim 19, Periyathambi and Shanker teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 5. Additionally, Periyathambi discloses wherein the image content of the first item includes an indicator and the instructions further cause the system to perform operations comprising: generating listing information based on data associated with the indicator and augmenting the first listing with the listing information (See at least paragraph [0030] disclosing item attributes extracted from the content of the video for a particular item including brand, [0032] disclosing information such as images and item attributes gleaned from the video may be provided to the listing generate and utilized for generating listings, [0037], [0042]) and wherein the indicator includes an indicator image content and the instructions further cause the system to perform operations comprising: converting the indicator image content to indicator text; generating the listing information to include ethe indicator text; and augmenting the first listing with the indicator text (See at least paragraph [0030] disclosing item attributes extracted from the content of the video for a particular item including brand, model, size, etc., [0032] disclosing information such as images and item attributes gleaned from the video may be provided to the listing generate and utilized for generating listings, [0032] disclosing listing generator using attribute such a brand, model, color, etc. extracted from content of video to populate corresponding fields in a listing generator, [0037] disclosing indicator image content such as brand, color, etc. used as attribute pairs, [0042]). However, neither Periyathambi nor Shanker expressly provide for determining a location associated with displaying the augmented first listing; converting the indicator text from a first format to a second format based on the location; and augmenting the first listing with the converted indicator text.
Sussman discloses determining a location associated with displaying the augmented first listing; converting the indicator text from a first format to a second format based on the location; and augmenting the first listing with the converted indicator text (See at least paragraph [0020] disclosing auto populating the new product listing, [0071]-[0072] disclosing mapping IDs which correlates field in data feed of particular merchant, retailer or other supplier to a field that is known to the system as part of system’s data structure to match specific channel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the framework use as taught by Sussman in the listing system of Periyathambi/Shanker because it would provide for better inventory management and data ingestion. See Sussman paragraphs [0002]-[0008].
Claim(s) 8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Periyathambi et al. (US 2023/0206314) in view of Shanker et al. (US 2024/0242260), and further in view of Wang et al. (US 11,461,829).
Regarding Claims 8 and 15, Periyathambi and Shanker teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 1 and 9. However, neither Periyathambi nor Shanker expressly provide for wherein the first characteristic includes first text having a first sequence and the second characteristic includes a second text having a second sequence, wherein the instructions cause the system to perform operations comprising: rearranging the first text from the first sequence to the second sequence; and augmenting the first listing to include ethe first text having the second sequence.
Wang discloses wherein the first characteristic includes first text having a first sequence and the second characteristic includes a second text having a second sequence, wherein the instructions cause the system to perform operations comprising: rearranging the first text from the first sequence to the second sequence; and augmenting the first listing to include ethe first text having the second sequence (See at least col 4, lines 5-20 disclosing respective sequence of tokens such as words of phrases for the input item descriptions, col 8, lns 17-26, col 8, lns 54-61 disclosing encoding token sequences are passed to attribute summarizing layers and a separate and mirror attribute summarizing layer may be provided for each token sequence so there may be only a single attribute summarizing layer used for both token sequences, col 9, lns 25-35 disclosing reduce the size of feature maps in its input feature map by extracting activation of group of neighboring tokens in feature map that fall within a window size and with successive convolution layers and pooling layers, the original encoded token sequence may be progressively reduced in size to produce smaller and smaller feature maps, col 14, lns 35-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the framework use as taught by Wang in the listing system of Periyathambi/Shanker because the use of machine processes and sequencing would help to better compare and determine item descriptions in a large item catalog for determining comparable items. See Wang col 1, lns 8-31.
Conclusion
The references cited in the form PTO-892 were not applied under relevant section §103 in the above Office Action, however, they are considered relevant to both claimed and unclaimed features of the instant invention. Applicant is herein advised to review the cited prior art references prior to responding to the instant Office Action in order to expedite prosecution of the instant application. For example:
“Leveraging Large Language Models for Enhanced Product Descriptions in eCommerce” (Zhou, J., Liu, B., Acharya, J., Hong, Y., Lee, K.C. and Wen, M., Leveraging large language models for enhanced product descriptions in eCommerce, December 2023, In Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Natural Language Generation, Evaluation, and Metrics (GEM), pp. 88-96.) disclosing automating and optimizing product descriptions in eCommerce.
Gates et al. (US 12,248,974) disclosing comparing a listing to other similar listings to help tailor information.
Gong et al. (US 2022/0343626) disclosing images mapped to vectors and performing similarity matching on images.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY E BARGEON whose telephone number is (571)272-2861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am to 6:00pm.
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, Jeffrey A Smith can be reached at (571) 272-6763. 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.
/B.E.B/Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/KELLY S. CAMPEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights