DETAILED CORRESPONDANCE
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 claims
This final office action on merits is in response to the communication received on 6/11/2026. Amendments to claims 1-2, 5-9, and 13-20 are acknowledged and have been carefully considered. Claims 1-20 are pending and considered below.
Subject Matter Free of Art
Claims 1-20 include subject matter that is free of the prior art. The cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features found within independent claim 1. In particular, the cited prior art fails to expressly teach or suggest the specific combination of elements and ordered operations recited in these claims, including determining that a first path is unavailable and cannot be used to transmit a first message with a first payload; identifying a second path that is unsuitable for transmission of the first payload; transmitting the first message without the first payload via the second path; receiving a notification indicating that the second path was used; and subsequently determining that the first path is available and can be used to transmit a second message with a second payload and transmitting the second message with the second payload via the first path.
For claim 1, the cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the claimed ordered transmission sequence in which the suitability and availability of different transmission paths control whether a payload is included with a transmitted message. More particularly, the cited art does not teach or suggest identifying an alternate second path as unsuitable for transmission of the first payload and, based on that condition, transmitting the first message without the first payload via the second path, followed by subsequently determining that the first path is available and capable of transmitting a second message with a second payload and transmitting the second message with the second payload via the first path. The cited art further fails to teach or suggest this sequence in combination with the recited timeout operation information and receipt of a notification indicating that the second path was used.
The closest prior art of record includes: 1) Rybkin (U.S. Patent Publication 2016/0004836 A1), referred to hereinafter as Rybkin; 2) Kim et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9467970 B1), referred to hereinafter as Kim; 3) Underwood et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2010/0325470 A1), referred to hereinafter as Underwood, and 4) Hartman et al. (U.S. Patent 9235547 B1), referred to hereinafter as Hartman.
Rybkin teaches a computer implemented healthcare messaging system in which patient information may be obtained from electronic medical records and messages containing patient and clinical information may be dynamically routed to healthcare providers. Rybkin further teaches networked communications among different healthcare institutions and facilities. However, Rybkin fails to teach or suggest determining that a first transmission path cannot be used to transmit a first message with its payload, identifying a second path that is unsuitable for transmission of that payload, and transmitting the first message without the payload via the second path. Rybkin further fails to teach or suggest the subsequently claimed sequence of determining that the first path is available for a second message and payload and thereafter transmitting the second message with its payload via that first path.
Kim teaches determining that message providers associated with a region may be unavailable for reasons such as being offline or being too unreliable, and teaches identifying fallback message providers that may be used when a preferred message provider is unavailable. However, Kim fails to teach or suggest that an alternate path is unsuitable for transmission of a particular payload or, based on such unsuitability, transmitting a message without its payload via the alternate path. Kim further fails to teach or suggest the claimed ordered sequence in which the first path is unavailable for transmission of the first message with its payload and is subsequently determined to be available and used to transmit a second message with its payload.
Underwood teaches transmitting an instant message via a primary delivery channel, providing acknowledgement messages regarding delivery, and, when the primary delivery channel is unavailable, attempting to route the message through an alternate delivery channel, such as email or SMS. However, Underwood fails to teach or suggest identifying the alternate delivery path as unsuitable for transmission of the message payload and transmitting the first message without that payload via the alternate path. Underwood also fails to expressly teach that the acknowledgement received by the originating device indicates that the alternate path was used, and fails to teach or suggest the subsequent claimed sequence of determining that the first path is available for transmission of a second message with its payload and transmitting the second message with its payload via that first path.
Hartman teaches a server messaging architecture in which messages are received from a message originator, transmitted through a communication sever over a communication network, rerouted to alternative recipients or client interfaces when message delivery is unsuccessful, and delivery confirmation is provided to the message originator. However, Hartman fails to teach or suggest that an alternate path is unsuitable for transmission of a particular payload or, based on such unsuitability, transmitting a message without its payload via the alternate path. Hartman further fails to teach or suggest the claimed ordered sequence in which the first path is unavailable for transmission of the first message with its payload and is subsequently determined to be available and used to transmit a second message with its payload.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1, 7, 12-14 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically, claim 1 recites a sequence in which the control server determines that a first path is unavailable, including identifying that the first path is unable to effectuate and cannot be used for transmitting a first message along with a first payload, and thereafter, in connection with a second request to transmit a second message including a second payload, determines that the first path is available, including identifying that the first path is able to effectuate and can be used for transmitting the second message along with the second payload, and transmits the second message with the second payload via the first path.
The specification discloses that when an optimal path is not available, the manager identifies an alternate path that may be used. Because clinical information is included in the messages, the specification further discloses that the actual payload is not communicated via the alternate path and, instead, a notification of the message may be communicated via the alternate path. The specification also discloses that a timer may be used to identify when messages have not been reliably delivered and that, upon expiration of a predetermined time period without receipt of an acknowledgement, the manager may evaluate alternate paths (see paragraphs [0044] and [0046]). However, the specification does not describe the particular sequence presently claimed in which the first path is determined to be unable to, and incapable of being used to, transmit the first message with the first payload, followed by a subsequent determination that the first path is able to, and can be used to, transmit a second message with a second payload, and transmission of the second message with the second payload via that first path. The general disclosure of identifying an alternate path when an optimal path is unavailable does not reasonably convey possession of the specifically claimed transition from the first path being unusable for transmission of the first message and payload to that same first path being usable for transmission of the subsequent second message and payload.
Specifically, claims 7, 14, and 20 recite that “receiving the notification corresponds to determining delivery information with respect to the target endpoint address or with respect to use of the second path by the control server in connection with responding to the first request to transmit.” However, the specification does not disclose that receiving the notification corresponds to determining delivery information with respect to the target endpoint address or use of the second path by the control server.
The specification discloses device level and user level acknowledgements that provide information regarding delivery status and presentation of message content. The specification separately discloses that when an optimal path is unavailable, the manager may identify an alternate path and communicate a notification of the message via the alternate path. The specification further provides that a separate push receipt may optionally be communicated from the manager to the source device to notify the source device that an alternate path was used (see paragraphs [0039]-[0044]). However, the disclosures do not describe receiving the notification as corresponding to determining delivery information concerning the target endpoint address or use of the alternate path. Instead, delivery status and alternate path usage are associated with the disclosed acknowledgements and push receipt.
Specifically, claims 12 and 18 recite that “the push receipt is configured to indicate to the source device information corresponding to the first path being unavailable”, and “the push receipt is configured to indicate to the source device information corresponding to use of the second path based on the first path being unavailable”, respectively. Similarly, claims 13 and 19 recite that “the notification further comprises an indication that the second path to the target endpoint address has been identified as available for transmitting the first message to the target endpoint address”, and “the notification further comprises an indication that the second path to the target endpoint address has been identified as available was used for transmitting the first message to the target endpoint address”. However, the specification does not disclose a push receipt or notification that indicates that a first transmission path is unavailable or that a second path has been identified as available.
The specification only discloses that when an optimal path is not available, the system identifies an alternate path and communicates a notification of the message via the alternate path. The specification further states that a push receipt may optionally be communicated from the manager to the source device to notify the source device that an alternate path was used (see paragraph [0044]). The specification therefore describes notifying the source device that an alternate path was used, but does not describe a push receipt indicating that a first path is unavailable or that a second path has been identified as available for transmitting the message, as recited in claims 5 and 6.
Accordingly, the specification fails to reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of claims 1, 7, 12-14 and 18-20 at the time of filing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Under step 1, the analysis is based on MPEP 2106.03, and claims 1-7 are drawn to a computer-implemented method, claims 8-14 are drawn to one or more non-transitory media, and claims 15-20 are drawn to a system. Thus, each claim, on its face, is directed to one of the statutory categories (i.e., useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) of 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claim 1 recites the limitations of determining that a first path, suitable for transmitting the first message with the first payload, to a target endpoint address associated with the target device is unavailable, wherein determining that the first path to the target endpoint address associated with the target device is unavailable; identifying that the first path is unable to effectuate, and cannot be used for, transmitting of the first message along with the first payload to the target endpoint address associated with the target device; identifying a second path to the target endpoint address associated with the target device, the second path being unsuitable for transmission of the first payload; determine that the first path, suitable for transmitting the second message with the second payload, to the target endpoint address associated with the target device is available; and identifying that the first path is able to effectuate, and can be used for, transmitting of the second message along with the second payload to the target endpoint address associated with the target device. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover performance of the limitations in the mind or by using a pen and paper. Even when considering the “the control server” language, the claim encompasses a user reviewing information regarding available transmission paths, evaluating whether a first path is available or unavailable and suitable or unsuitable for transmitting particular information, identifying an alternative path when the first path is determined to be unavailable, and subsequently evaluating whether the first path is available and capable of transmitting the second message and payload in their mind or by using a pen and paper. The nominal recitation of the control server does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process which is an abstract idea.
Independent claims 8 and 15 recite identical or nearly identical steps with respect to claim 1 (and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and these claims are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Under Step 2A Prong Two
The claimed limitations, as per claim 1, include:
accessing, via at least one hardware processor of the one or more hardware processors associated with a source device that is configured to communicate at a medical environment that includes a control server,
one or more electronic medical records that are stored at or associated with a database in the medical environment;
generating, via the at least one hardware processor, a first payload for use with a first message to be communicated via the control server;
sending, via the at least one hardware processor, a first request to transmit the first message to a destination associated with a target device, the first message including the first payload and comprising particular clinical information identified from one or more electronic medical records, wherein: the control server and the destination are in separate domains associated with the medical environment; and
the control server is configured to
(a)determine that a first path, suitable for transmitting the first message with the first payload, to a target endpoint address associated with the target device is unavailable, wherein determining that the first path to the target endpoint address associated with the target device is unavailable: (i) is performed at an electronic message manager that stores at least partially, and accesses timeout operation information, and (ii) comprises identifying that the first path is unable to effectuate, and cannot be used for, transmitting of the first message along with the first payload to the target endpoint address associated with the target device,
(b) identify a second path to the target endpoint address associated with the target device, the second path being unsuitable for transmission of the first payload, and
(c) transmit the first message, without the first payload, via the second path to the target endpoint address associated with the target device;
receiving, via one or both of the at least one hardware processor and the source device and in response to the sending of the first request to transmit, a request receipt element comprising a notification that the second path was used to transmit the first message to the destination;
sending, via the at least one hardware processor, a second request to transmit a second message including a second payload to the destination associated with a target device,
wherein: the control server is configured to
(a) determine that the first path, suitable for transmitting the second message with the second payload, to the target endpoint address associated with the target device is available,
(b) identify that the first path is able to effectuate, and can be used for, transmitting of the second message along with the second payload to the target endpoint address associated with the target device, and
(c) transmit the second message, with the second payload, via the first path to the target endpoint address associated with the target device.
Examiner Note: underlined elements indicate additional elements of the claimed invention identified as performing the steps of the claimed invention.
The limitations of accessing information via at least one hardware processor associated with a source device; accessing electronic medical records stored at or associated with a database; performing operations via the at least one hardware processor; configuring the control server to perform the recited operations; and performing operations via the hardware processor or source device merely apply the abstract idea using generic computer components performing their ordinary functions of accessing, retrieving, storing, processing, and communicating information. The claim does not recite a particular technological mechanism by which these generic computer components are improved or operate differently from their ordinary functions.
Similarly, the additional limitation that the determination of path availability is performed at an electronic message manager that stores and accesses timeout operation information does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Instead, the limitation merely instructs that the abstract evaluation of path availability be performed using an electronic message manager and stored timeout information, without reciting a particular technological mechanism or specific technological steps by which the message manager uses the timeout operation information to determine path availability. Accordingly, the limitation amounts to use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and is no more than an instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer functionality, consistent with MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the limitations of transmitting the first message, without the first payload, via the second path to the target endpoint address and transmitting the second message, with the second payload, via the first path to the target endpoint address do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Instead, these limitations recite the desired results of transmitting selected message information over an identified transmission path based on the preceding path availability determinations, without reciting a particular technical mechanism or specific technological steps for accomplishing those results. For example, the claim does not specify how the payload is removed, or excluded from the first transmission, how the first or second path is technically established to accomplish the recited transmissions, or any specific routing protocol or network mechanism used to perform the transmissions. Thus, the limitations merely instruct the computer system to implement the results of the abstract path evaluations and selections and amount to no more than instructions to apply the judicial exception using the recited computer and network components, consistent with MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, considered individually and in combination, do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The judicial exception expressed in claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application. The abstract idea is merely carried out in a technical environment or field (i.e., a computer clinical messaging environment involving separate domains). The additional limitations reciting a medical environment and that a control server and destination are in separate domains associated with the medical environment merely limit the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. These limitations do not recite a particular technological improvement to the operation of the separate domains or to the manner in which the communications are performed between the domains, but instead generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular field of use and network environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The judicial exception expressed in claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element of receiving and in response to the sending of the first request to transmit, a request receipt element comprising a notification that the second path was used to transmit the first message to the destination. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of receiving and reporting information concerning the result of the preceding path determination and message transmission) and constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity. Specifically, the limitation merely receives and reports the result of the preceding activity, the second path was used to transmit the first message, without further meaningfully applying or technologically transforming that information. This the post solution receipt of information does not meaningful limit the judicial exception. Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Therefore, under step 2A, the claims are directed to the abstract idea, and require further analysis under Step 2B.
Under step 2B
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements comprise generic computing components (i.e., accessing, via at least one hardware processor of the one or more hardware processors associated with a source device that is configured to communicate at a medical environment that includes a control server, one or more electronic medical records that are stored at or associated with a database, generating, via the at least one hardware processor, a first payload for use with a first message to be communicated via the control server, via the at least one hardware processor, the control server is configured to, performed at an electronic message manager that stores at least partially, and accesses timeout operation information, via one or both of the at least one hardware processor and the source device) performing well-understood functions of accessing, retrieving, storing, generating, processing, evaluating, and communicating electronic information using generic computing components. Also noted in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016), merely collecting information for analysis without a technological improvement does not add significantly more to an abstract idea. The use of the computer-implemented method is no more than collecting information before performing the evaluations and determinations concerning transmission path availability and suitability and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Additionally, the limitations of transmitting the first message, without the first payload, via the second path to the target endpoint address associated with the target device and transmitting the second message, with the second payload, via the first path to the target endpoint address associated with the target device merely implement the results of the preceding abstract evaluation and path determinations the results of the abstract idea and recites only the desired outcome of transmitting selected message information over an identified transmission path based on whether the respective path is determined to be available and suitable for transmission without specifying any particular technological manner or improvement for accomplishing the message routing, payload withholding, or transmission. Thus, the claim merely applies the abstract idea using generic computer technology and is drafted in a result-oriented manner that effectively covers any mechanism capable of performing the claimed limitation. Viewed individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the judicial exception into patent eligible subject matter because they amount to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea on generic computer components. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., 850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, the abstract idea is merely carried out in a technical environment or field, however fails to contain meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 3, 5-6, 10, 12-13, and 18-19 recite no further additional elements, and only further narrow the abstract idea. The previously identified additional elements, individually and as a combination, do not integrate the narrowed abstract idea into a practical application for reasons similar to those explained above, and do not amount to significantly more than the narrowed abstract idea for reasons similar to those explained above.
Claim 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 14, 16-17, and 20 recites the additional elements of wherein sending the first request to transmit includes addressing the first request to transmit to the control server (claims 2, 9 and 16), from the control server (claims 4, 11, and 17), wherein receiving the notification corresponds to determining delivery information with respect to the target endpoint address or with respect to use of the second path by the control server in connection with responding to the first request to transmit (claims 7, 14, and 20). However, these additional elements amount to implementing an abstract idea on a generic computing device, mere data gathering, or displaying a result (i.e., insignificant extra-solution activities). As such, these additional elements, when considered individually or in combination with the previously identified additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Thus, as the dependent claims remain directed to a judicial exception, and as the additional elements of the claims do not amount to significantly more, the dependent claims are not patent eligible.
Therefore, the claims here fail to contain any additional element(s) or combination of additional elements that can be considered as significantly more and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lacking eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn because Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see Remarks/Amendments submitted on 06/11/2026 with respect to the rejection of the claims have been carefully considered and is addressed below.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory obvious type double patenting rejection is withdrawn in view of terminal disclaimer filed on 06/11/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The written description rejection of claims 5 and 6 has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments, which removed the previously identified unsupported limitations. A new written description rejection under 35 U.S.C. 121(a) is set forth with respect to claims 1, 7, 12-14 and 18-20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant states that claim 1 does not recite a mental process because limitations involving hardware processors and transmitting electronic messages through network paths cannot be performed in the human mind. Claim 1 recites determining whether a first path is available or unavailable for transmitting particular information, identifying whether the first path can or cannot be used, identifying a second path when the first path is unavailable, and subsequently determining that the first path is available and can be used. These limitations encompass evaluations and judgments that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed mentally or with the aid of pen and paper. The additional electronic transmission and computer limitations that cannot themselves be performed mentally are separately considered as additional elements under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Applicant further states that the amended limitations integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application by providing technological improvements relating to network bandwidth, memory usage, and processor resources. This argument is not persuasive because claim 1 does not recite a particular technological mechanism that produces the asserted improvements. Although the claim recites transmitting the first message without the first payload via a second path and transmitting the second message with the second payload via the first path, these limitations recite the desired results without specifying how the payload is technically removed or excluded from transmission, how the respective paths are established or configured, or any particular memory management technique or processor management technique that achieves the improvements. Also, performing the path availability determination at an electronic message manager that stores and accesses timeout operation information merely uses the recited computer components and information to perform the abstract evaluation without specifying a particular technological manner in which the timeout information is used to improve computer or network operation.
The remaining additional elements also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The limitations requiring a medical environment and separate domains merely limit the abstract idea to a particular field of use and technological environment without reciting an improvement to the operation of those domains or the manner in which cross domain communications are performed. Also, receiving a request receipt element comprising a notification that the second path was used merely reports the result of the preceding path determination and transmission and constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, considered individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements use generic computer and network components to implement the results of the abstract evaluations rather than providing a specific improvement to computer or network technology. Accordingly, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive, and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn because Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Hartman et al. (U.S. Patent 9235547 B1) teaches hierarchical messaging system that prioritizes messages, routes them through a hierarchy of target recipients using timers and acknowledgements, and automatically forwards messages to additional recipients when a recipient fails to respond within a predetermined time.
Vesto et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0063191 A1) teaches a healthcare integration platform that uses reusable interface definitions, machine learning analysis of messaging traffic, and graph based connection metadata to predict communication needs and automatically suggest provision data exchange between source and target systems.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KYRA R LAGOY whose telephone number is (703)756-1773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at (571)272-6702. 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.
/K.R.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3685
/Mark Holcomb/
Primary Examiner, AU 3685
Prosecution Insights