DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action, based on application 19/019,403 filed 13 January 2025, is filed responsive to the application’s initial filing. Claims 1-10, as originally presented, are currently pending and have been fully considered below.
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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to due to informalities:
Claim 1: “each of the command units” should be “each of the plurality of consecutive command units” (there are 6 instances of the term in the claim) in order to properly reflect antecedent basis of the term.
Claim 1, Lines 8-9: Lack of antecedent basis of the term “the command groups”. Antecedent basis is only provided for a single ‘same’ command group.
Claims 2-4, 7, and 8: Similar to Claim 1, “each of the command units” should be “each of the plurality of consecutive command units”.
Claim 3: “each of the commands” should be “each of the plurality of consecutive command units” (three instances).
Claim 3: “the size of the command unit” should be “the size of each of the command units”.
Claim 4: Similar to Claim 3, “each of the commands” should be “each of the plurality of consecutive command units”.
Claim 5: “consecutive command units” should be “the plurality of consecutive command units”.
Claim 6: “wherein determining the first execution order value of the command unit based on the command type comprising:” should be “wherein determining the first execution order value of each of the plurality of consecutive command units based on the command type comprising:”
Claim 6: “determining the first execution order value of the command unit for which a command type is a read command as a first value” should be “determining the first execution order value of the plurality of consecutive command units for which the command type is a read command as a first value”.
Claim 6: “determining the first execution order value of the command unit of other command types as a second value” should be “determining the first execution order value of the plurality of consecutive command units for which the command type is not the read command as a second value”.
Claim 7: Lack of antecedent basis of the term “the command groups”.
Claim 8: Lack of antecedent basis of the term “the command unit” and “the next execution order”. Suggested amendment: “a next command unit of the adjusted execution order”.
Claim 10: ‘claim1’ is presented as one term; the typographical error needs to be addressed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claim is directed to the following limitations:
“determining a first execution order value of each of the command units based on a command type”
“determining a second execution order value of each of the command units based on a time interval between each of the command units and a size of each of the command units”
Regarding the ‘first execution order value’, the limitation is not clear as to the meaning of the limitation since ‘a command type’ is singular. For example, if ‘a command type’ is an ‘access’ command, the limitation does not make sense (e.g. “determining a first execution order value of each of the command units based on an access command”). The Office interprets the limitation as follows: “determining a first execution order value of each consecutive command unit of the plurality of consecutive command units based on a type of command of the respective consecutive command unit”.
Regarding the ‘second execution order value’, the Office asserts the claim is indefinite as to how an execution order value is determined for a particular command unit based on a time interval between each consecutive command unit. For example, assuming consecutive command units ‘A’, ‘B’, and ‘C’ as a same command group with a time interval between ‘A’ =>’ B’ = 3 secs and a time interval between ‘B’ => ‘C’ = 4 secs, how would the value be determined for ‘A’, ‘B’, and ‘C’? If the time interval used to determine a second execution order value for ‘A’ is based on an amount of time from the start of ‘A’ to the start of ‘B’, then how would the second execution order value of ‘C’ be determined since ‘C’ is the last command of the command group? The Office cannot reasonably determine how time intervals are used to generate the second execution order value and interprets second execution order values as being determined based on command unit size.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitations "executing the commands of the method of claim 1" (Lines 3-4) and “execute the commands stored in the memory to execute the method of claim 1” (Line 6). There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the commands” in these limitations of the claim. Claim 1 is directed to a method for reordering command units in a command group. While Claim 1 provides antecedent basis for “receiving a command …” thus provides antecedent basis for a single ‘the command’, Claim 1 does not provide antecedent basis for a plurality of commands. First, the claim does not make sense regarding the memory being limited to ‘executing’ commands (doesn’t the memory simply store the commands?) while the processor is also limited to executing the same commands. Second, there appears to be some discrepancy as to what to call each element/unit of method Claim 1; Claim 9 refers to the elements/units as ‘commands’, while Claim 2 refers to an element/unit of the method as a ‘step’. For further evaluation purposes, the Office interprets the limitations of the electronic device’s memory as follows: “a memory for storing data issued by a host system and for storing the steps of the method of claim 1”. Calling each element/unit of the method claim as a ‘step’ will be accepted by the Office as the MPEP generally defines each element/unit of the method as a ‘step’ (e.g. MPEP 608.01(i)).
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 1-7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Patent Eligibility is determined as set forth under the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidelines (see MPEP § 2106). The analysis of the claims in view of the guidelines are presented below.
Claim 1:
Regarding Step 1, the claim is directed to a method (or process). Thus, the claim is directed to one of the four categories of invention.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 1, this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. The claim includes the following limitations:
A command processing method, comprising:
receiving a command issued by a host system and generating a corresponding command unit, and treating a plurality of consecutive command units as a same command group;
determining a first execution order value of each of the command units based on a command type;
determining a second execution order value of each of the command units based on a time interval between each of the command units and a size of each of the command units; and
adjusting an execution order of each of the command units in each of the command groups according to the first execution order value and the second execution order value of each of the command units.
The Office submits the underlined portions above recite a judicial exception. The underlines portions of limitations (2) through (5) are directed to a series of steps to generate a sequence of commands in a command group. Limitation (2) is directed to ‘generating a corresponding command unit’ which may be interpreted as a simple translation of the command from one form to another. Limitation (2) is further directed to ‘treating a plurality of consecutive command units as a same command group’ which may be interpreted as a grouping or selection of a dataset of commands. Limitations (3) and (4) are directed to determining or calculating values that are associated with each command of a command group based on criteria including a type of the command, a time interval between commands, and a size of the command. Limitation (5) is directed to ordering the commands based on the values calculated in Limitations (3) and (4). Enumerated groups of abstract ideas include “Mental Processes” (MPEP 2106.04(a)). The Office has determined Limitations (2) through (5) fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas as the limitations may practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
The Office has determined the claim recites a judicial exception requiring further analysis in Step 2A Prong 2.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 2, this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. Besides the abstract idea of the claim, the claim further recites the following additional elements (underlined):
A command processing method, comprising:
receiving a command issued by a host system and generating a corresponding command unit, and treating a plurality of consecutive command units as a same command group;
determining a first execution order value of each of the command units based on a command type;
determining a second execution order value of each of the command units based on a time interval between each of the command units and a size of each of the command units; and
adjusting an execution order of each of the command units in each of the command groups according to the first execution order value and the second execution order value of each of the command units.
Limitation (2) recites the additional element that a command is received. While the claim further recites that the origin of the command is a host system, the claim is not limited as to what receives the command. The Office asserts the action of ‘receiving’ is an insignificant extra-solution activity of the abstract idea as the ‘receiving’ may be interpreted as a mere form of data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)). As further noted, the claim recites the additional element of a host system as being the issuer of the command or otherwise stated as the source of the command. The Office asserts the claimed ‘host system’ as an additional element is recited at a high-level of generality (e.g. the host system is not limited to comprise any particular or specialized components) such that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the ‘host system’ is a generic computer. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the host system does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Finally, the Office notes the claim is merely directed to changing an ordering of a group of commands; the Office notes mere reordering of a group of commands fails to recite an improvement of the functioning of a computer since the reordering improvement is not realized until the group of commands is executed.
Thus, the Office has determined that the noted additional elements fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application requiring further analysis in Step 2B.
Regarding Step 2B, this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates the additional elements of the claim to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept. As noted in the analysis of Step 2A Prong 2, the Office has determined those additional elements.
Regarding Limitation (2), the courts have recognized, similar to ‘receiving a command’, that computer functions including “receiving or transmitting data over a network” to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in merely a generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Furthermore, the additional element of a ‘host system’ is recited at a high-level of generality such that the system may be interpreted as a generic computer; thus, the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the identified abstract idea using a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As such, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and thus is not patent eligible.
Claims 9 and 10:
Similar to the analysis of Claim 1 above:
Both Claims 9 and 10 are directed to a machine (or manufacture); thus, the claims are directed to one of the four categories of invention.
Both Claims 9 and 10 are directed to implementing the method of Claim 1; thus, both Claims 9 and 10 recite the judicial exception of Claim 1.
Beyond the method of Claim 1, both Claims 9 and 10 recite additional elements considered under Step 2A Prong 2. Claim 9 is directed to an electronic device comprising a host system, memory, and processor; Claim 10 is directed to a medium. Similar to the analysis of a ‘host system’ under Step 2A Prong 2 of Claim 1, the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the additional elements comprise a generic computer; the Office asserts the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the identified abstract idea using a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Thus, the additional elements fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Beyond the method of Claim 1, both Claims 9 and 10 further recite additional elements considered under Step 2B. Similar to the analysis of a ‘host system’ under Step 2B of Claim 1, the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that the system may be interpreted as a generic computer; thus, the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the identified abstract idea using a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Thus, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 2 through 7:
Claims 2 through 7, dependent on Claim 1, each have been found to further expand upon the identified abstract idea of Claim 1 (e.g. the additional limitations of the claims are being evaluated under Step 2A Prong 1 and do not recite any ‘additional elements’ for consideration under Step 2A Prong 2 or Step 2B).
Claim 2 further limits the process of determining the second execution order value for commands to include determining a data length needed by each command (an observation) and determining a ratio based on the data length and size of the command (an evaluation).
Claim 3 further limits the process of determining the second execution order value for commands to include using the ratio determined in Claim 2 as a basis for determining the value (an evaluation).
Claim 4 further limits the process of determining the second execution order value for commands to include using weights as a basis for determining the value (an evaluation).
Claim 5 further limits the process of determining the second execution order value for commands such that the time interval used in determining the value is bound by a threshold (an evaluation).
Claim 6 further limits the process of determining the first execution order value for commands based on whether or not the command is a ‘read’ command while prioritizing commands that are of the ‘read’ type (an evaluation).
Claim 7 further limits the process of adjusting the execution order by limiting how the first and second execution order values impact the adjustment (an evaluation).
As such, the Office has determined that the additional limitations incorporated into the dependent claims fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas as the limitations may practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RADHAKRISHNAN et al (US PGPub 2025/0103381) in further view of EHRLICH (US PGPub 2019/0279660) and HARRIMAN et al (US Patent 6,088,772).
With respect to Claim 1, RADHAKRISHNAN discloses a command processing method, comprising:
receiving a command issued by a host system (¶[0039] – “The controller also receives data and/or instructions/commands from the host device”) and generating a corresponding command unit (¶[0072] – “The command may then be placed in a command queue for execution”);
determining a first execution order value of each of the command units based on a command type (¶[0043] – “When a command is received, the scheduling system analyzes the command to determine command parameters associated with the command. Once the command parameters are determined, the scheduling system determines an execution weight for each of the command parameters. When the execution weight for each command parameter is determined, a force for the command is determined {analogous to ‘execution order value’}”; ¶[0058] – “The third category is a command attribute category … For example, the command attribute category includes command type information that indicates whether the command is a program, read or erase command”);
determining a second execution order value of each of the command units based on a size of each of the command units (¶[0047] – “the data attribute category includes a size of data associated with the command. In an example, as the size of the data associated with the command decreases, the weight associated with the command increases”); and
adjusting an execution order of each of the command units in each of the command groups according to the first execution order value and the second execution order value of each of the command units (¶[0062] – “The scheduling system may then order the commands based, at least in part, on the determined force”).
RADHAKRISHNAN may not explicitly disclose treating a plurality of consecutive command units as a same command group and determining a second execution order value of each of the command units based on a time interval between each of the command units.
However, HARRIMAN discloses treating a plurality of consecutive command units as a same command group (Col 2, Lines 7-23 – “a fence command, among other things, limits reordering to within groups of normal priority commands between ‘fences’. Thus, at least from the perspective of command groups, the fence command forces command ordering”).
RADHAKRISHNAN and HARRIMAN are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of command scheduling. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of RADHAKRISHNAN and HARRIMAN before him or her, to modify the controller and command protocol of RADHAKRISHNAN to include fence commands as taught by HARRIMAN. A motivation for doing so would have been to limit the number of commands reordered to a group ensuring that a low priority command of the group is not excessively delayed from being executed (Col 6, Lines 36-63). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine RADHAKRISHNAN and HARRIMAN to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claims.
RADHAKRISHNAN and HARRIMAN may not explicitly disclose determining a second execution order value of each of the command units based on a time interval between each of the command units.
However, EHRLICH discloses determining a second execution order value of each of the command units based on a time interval between each of the command units (¶[0062] – “The HDC 17 calculates the processing time of each command in the table being referenced, where the command is assumed to begin to be executed following the command being executed. The processing time is based on a time interval calculated to occur between when the command currently being executed is completed and the command in the table being referenced can begin to be executed.”; ¶[0063] – “Next, the HDC 17 determines whether or not there is a more efficient command that has been evaluated than the command to be executed next among the reordered commands (S48). Here, the term “more efficient” means that the processing time is shorter. When there is a more efficient command than the command to be executed next (Yes in S48), the HDC 17 selects the more efficient command as the command to be executed next (S49)”).
RADHAKRISHNAN, HARRIMAN, and EHRLICH are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of command scheduling. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of RADHAKRISHNAN, HARRIMAN, and EHRLICH before him or her, to modify the controller of the combination of RADHAKRISHNAN and HARRIMAN to include command reordering based on time intervals as taught by EHRLICH. A motivation for doing so would have been to adopt the use of a ‘nearest neighbor’ algorithm that may save a large amount of computation (¶[0003]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine RADHAKRISHNAN, HARRIMAN, and EHRLICH to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claims.
With respect to Claim 9, RADHAKRISHNAN discloses an electronic device, comprising: a host system (Fig 1, Host Device 105); a memory for storing data issued by a host system (Fig 1, Data Storage Device 110) and executing the commands of the method of claim 1 (see prior art rejection to Claim 1 above regarding the combination of RADHAKRISHNAN, HARRIMAN, and EHRLICH shown to teach the claimed method); and a processor electrically connected to the memory and the host system (Fig 1, Processor 115), respectively, and configured to execute the commands stored in the memory to execute the method of claim 1 (see prior art rejection to Claim 1 above regarding the combination of RADHAKRISHNAN, HARRIMAN, and EHRLICH shown to teach the claimed method).
With respect to Claim 10, RADHAKRISHNAN discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium stores a command loaded by a processor (¶[0118] – “examples described herein may be discussed in the general context of computer-executable instructions residing on some form of computer-readable storage medium … executed by one or more computers”) to execute the method of claim 1 (see prior art rejection to Claim 1 above regarding the combination of RADHAKRISHNAN, HARRIMAN, and EHRLICH shown to teach the claimed method).
With respect to Claim 2, the combination of RADHAKRISHNAN, HARRIMAN, and EHRLICH disclose the command processing method of claim 1.
RADHAKRISHNAN further discloses wherein the step of determining the second execution order value of each of the command units based on the time interval between each of the command units and the size of the command unit generated corresponding to each of the commands further comprises: obtaining a data length needed to be transmitted by each of the command units; and determining a first ratio of each of the command units according to the data length needed to be transmitted by each of the command units and the size of each of the command units (¶[0048] – “the proportion is represented as the standard command size multiplied by the queue depth”).
With respect to Claim 5, the combination of RADHAKRISHNAN, HARRIMAN, and EHRLICH disclose the command processing method of claim 1.
EHRLICH further discloses wherein the time interval between consecutive command units in the same command group is less than a predetermined threshold (¶[0063] – “When there is a more efficient command than the command to be executed next {analogous to a ‘predetermined threshold’} (Yes in S48), the HDC 17 selects the more efficient command as the command to be executed next (S49)”).
With respect to Claim 6, the combination of RADHAKRISHNAN, HARRIMAN, and EHRLICH disclose the command processing method of claim 1.
RADHAKRISHNAN further discloses wherein determining the first execution order value of the command unit based on the command type comprises: determining the first execution order value of the command unit for which a command type is a read command as a first value; determining the first execution order value of the command unit of other command types as a second value; wherein an execution priority of the first value is higher than an execution priority of the second value (¶[0059] – “a read command may be given a higher execution weight when compared with a write command and/or erase command”).
With respect to Claim 7, the combination of RADHAKRISHNAN, HARRIMAN, and EHRLICH disclose the command processing method of claim 1.
RADHAKRISHNAN further discloses wherein the step of adjusting the execution order of each of the command units in each of the command groups according to the first execution order value and the second execution order value of each of the command units further comprises: adjusting the execution order of each of the command units in each of the command groups according to an execution priority of the first execution order value; and adjusting the execution order of each of the commands in each of the command groups from large to small according to the second execution order value in a case that the first execution order values are the same (¶[0045] – the command parameters fall into three (or more) categories. Further, each of the categories may be arranged in a hierarchy or otherwise be associated with a priority/precedence. Thus, if the determined force of two(or more commands) is the same, the command having a higher weight in one of the categories may be ordered before the other command”).
With respect to Claim 8, the combination of RADHAKRISHNAN, HARRIMAN, and EHRLICH disclose the command processing method of claim 1.
RADHAKRISHNAN further discloses executing the command units in each of the command groups in sequence according to the adjusted execution order (¶[0007] – “An execution order for the command is then determined and is based, at least in part, on the execution weight of the one or more command parameters”; ¶[0001] – “A data storage device receives and executes a number of different commands. Typically, when a command is received, a scheduler associated with a controller and/or firmware of the data storage device determines an execution order for the received commands”); performing a parsing and a data transmission on each of the command units in each of the command groups in sequence (¶[0043] – “When a command is received, the scheduling system 180 analyzes the command to determine command parameters associated with the command”).
EHRLICH further discloses wherein after the parsing of a current command unit is completed, the parsing is performed on the command unit of the next execution order at the same time that the data transmission is performed on the current command unit (¶[0066] – “ While the command A is being executed, the HDC 17 performs the reordering processing”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 4 are allowed over prior art.
Claim 1 is directed to a method of command/instruction reordering based on metrics of the command derived from various characteristics of the command including command type, time interval between commands, and a size of the command. Claim 3, dependent on Claim 1, is further limits the reordering of parent Claim 1 by adding a calculated ratio of a data length needed to be transmitted by a command and the size of the command as a further basis of the reordering. While cited prior art including RADHAKRISHNAN disclose command reordering based on various characteristics of the command including those characteristics noted in the rejection to Claim 1, cited prior art has not been found to anticipate or render obvious the determination of the second execution order value of a command based on the ratio as limited in the claim.
While Claims 3 and 4 are indicated as allowable over prior art, Claims 3 and 4 are not allowed as they are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 and 35 U.S.C. § 101 as noted above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure teach related methods for reordering commands by a command scheduler.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC T LOONAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6994. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arpan Savla can be reached at 571-272-1077. 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.
/ERIC T LOONAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2137