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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8 July 2026 has been entered.
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 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a mental process without significantly more.
Independent claim 8 recites:
“A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions, the set of instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a system, cause the system to:
receive a configuration file identifying a set of configuration settings for data logging of a runtime function associated with execution in a cloud computing environment of a cloud platform;
extract, from the configuration file, the set of configuration settings;
configure, using the set of configuration settings, a listener service associated with receiving a data log in connection with an execution of the runtime function in the cloud environment associated with the cloud platform,
wherein the listener service is configured as a platform extension of a platform that provides the runtime function;
receive, based on establishing the listener service and based on the execution of the runtime function, the data log; and
forward, to a data log platform and based on receiving the data log, information associated with the data log.”
The claims are directed towards a mental process because the claims include functional steps of “extracting” configuration settings, and “configuring” a listener service to receive data. Each of these are capable of being done by a user with a generic computer.
The claims contain additional elements in the form of the memories a non-transitory medium (claim 8), “receiving” a configuration file, “receiving” the data log, and “forwarding” information and the data log.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed additional elements do not appear to improve the processing of a computer, require the use of a specific machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or provide a technological solution to a technological problem.
The non-transitory medium is recited at a high level of generality. It appear to be a generic computing hardware element. The recitation of generic hardware is little more than using a computer to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). “Receiving” information appears to be a data gathering step and is thus mere pre-solution insignificant activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g). “Forwarding” information and the data log do not appear to improve the functioning of a computer or any technology or technical field because they involve the mere transmission of data (see MPEP 2106.05(a)).
It is noted that none of the additional elements appear to improve the processing of a computer, require the use of a specific machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or provide a technological solution to a technological problem. As such, none of the additional elements appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
None of the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, in part or in whole.
The recitation of generic hardware of the non-transitory medium is little more than using a computer to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). The additional element of “receiving” information is merely extra-solution activity data gathering and is well understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). “Forwarding” data directed is merely a transmission of data and appears to be regarded as well understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
None of the additional elements, in part or in whole, appear to improve the processing of a computer, require the use of a particular machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or add a specific limitation other than what is well understood, routine, or conventional. As such, none of the additional elements appears to be, in part or as a whole, significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 9-14 are also patent ineligible. The claims are largely directed towards additional limitations that further define data types or further describe analyses that will occur. While additional “forwarding” steps are claimed in 11 and 14, it is noted that these “forwarding” steps do not appear to incorporate the abstract idea into a practical application nor appear to, in part or as a whole, provide significantly more than the abstract idea because they appear to be merely generic data transmission steps. It is noted that the claimed data definitions and data analysis and extraction steps do not appear to include other additional elements that incorporate the claimed subject matter into a practical application. The dependent claims also do not include additional elements that, in part or as a whole, appear to be significantly more than the abstract idea.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellison et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2012/0290647) in view of Narasimhan et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2012/0179802), and further in view of Hall. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2017/0259115).
As to claim 1, Ellison teaches a system for cloud platform data logging, the system comprising:
one or more memories (see Ellison paragraph [0083]); and
one or more processors, communicatively coupled to the one or more memories (see Ellison paragraph [0083]), configured to:
receive information identifying a cloud platform associated with generating a data log (see Ellison paragraph [0054]. The monitoring function and apparatus in Ellison monitors and produces logs for events related to cloud computing services);
receive a configuration .. identifying a set of configuration settings for data logging of a particular type of function in a cloud environment associated with the cloud platform (see paragraphs [0054]-[0059] and [0083]. The monitoring system of Ellison is established in response to user instructions, or configuration, regarding what objects, user code submissions, applications, and services are to be monitored. These are all “particular types of functions” in a cloud computing environment associated with a cloud platform);
identify an application programming interface (API) associated with the cloud platform (see Ellison paragraph [0083]. A monitoring managing apparatus comprises an API and is associated with a cloud platform, paragraph [0054]);
establish, using the set of configuration settings and using the API associated with the cloud platform, a listener service associated with receiving the data log asynchronously to an execution of the particular type of function (see paragraphs [0045] and [0054]-[0059] and [0083]. The monitoring system of Ellison is established in response to user instructions regarding what objects, user code submissions, applications, and services are to be monitored);
…
receive, based on establishing the listener service and based on the execution of the particular type of function, the data log (see paragraph [0058]-[0059]. The user selects a type of report to receive and receives the report on the execution of the types of functions requested by the user); and
Ellison does not explicitly teach:
receive a configuration file …
Wherein the listener service is configured as a platform extension of a platform that provides the particular type of function and using the API associated with the cloud platform;
Wherein establishing the listener service comprises:
Subscribing, via the API associated with the cloud platform, the listener service to receive the data log, from the platform that provides the particular type of function, asynchronously to the execution of the particular type of function;
forward, to a data log platform and based on receiving the data log, information associated with the data log.
Narasimhan teaches:
receive a configuration file … (see paragraph [0059]. Narasimhan may access a central repository for control and configuration information, including commands sent to cloud agents);
Wherein the listener service is configured as a platform extension of a platform that provides the particular type of function and using the API associated with the cloud platform (see Narasimhan paragraphs [0036] and [0038]. Narasimhan shows to establish an extension to a cloud platform that performs functions using APIs, including monitoring resources on the cloud. As noted in paragraphs [0107]-[0111], this may include collecting and organizing log data);
forward, to a data log platform and based on receiving the data log, information associated with the data log (see Narasimhan paragraphs [0107]-[0111]. Data logs from resources on the cloud may be collected and forwarded to a management platform, [0110])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Ellison by the teachings of Narasimhan because Narasimhan provides Ellison the benefit of increased flexibility in providing cloud management functions to a platform (see Narasimhan paragraph [0036]).
Hall teaches:
Wherein establishing the listener service comprises:
Subscribing, via the API associated with the cloud platform, the listener service to receive the data log, from the platform that provides the particular type of function, asynchronously to the execution of the particular type of function (see paragraphs [0178] and [0142]. Hall shows the use of APIs in a cloud platform to subscribe to data events that provide particular outputs. As noted in paragraph [0142], the system of cloud operates asynchronously);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Ellison by the teachings of Hall because Hall provides Ellison the benefit of being able to efficiently receive data as it is updated while performing multiple types of data analysis on the data and providing output to subscribers. This will increase the utility of Ellison by giving subscribers more control over subscription data.
As to claim 4, Ellison teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the data log includes a function log, and wherein the function log includes information identifying an output stream or an error stream associated with the particular type of function (see Ellison paragraph [0057]).
As to claim 5, Ellison teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the data log includes an extension log, and wherein the extension log includes information identifying an output of an extension to the particular type of function (see Ellison paragraph [0057]).
As to claim 6, Ellison teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the data log includes a platform log, and wherein the platform log includes information identifying an output of the cloud platform in connection with the execution of the particular type of function (see Ellison paragraph [0057]).
As to claim 21, Ellison as modified teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the particular type of function is associated with a function as a service function (see Ellison paragraph [0057]).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellison et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2012/0290647) in view of Narasimhan et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2012/0179802), further in view of Hall. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2017/0259115), and further in view of Ticehurst (US Pre-Grant Publication 2022/0350813).
As to claim 2, Ellison as modified teaches the system of claim 1.
Ellison as modified does not teach wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
parse the data log based on receiving the data log; and
wherein the one or more processors, to forward the information associated with the data log, are configured to:
forward information extracted by parsing the data log.
Ticehurst teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
parse the data log based on receiving the data log (see Ticehurst paragraphs [0050]-[0051]); and
wherein the one or more processors, to forward the information associated with the data log, are configured to:
forward information extracted by parsing the data log (see Ticehurst paragraphs [0050]-[0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Ellison by the teachings of Ticehurst because Ticehurst provides Ellison the benefit of being able to efficiently exchange log data between a source and a destination. This will increase the utility of Ellison by allowing log data to be analyzed in different formats and at different locations than a source system.
As to claim 3, Ellison as modified teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
identify an initial format of the data log based on receiving the data log;
identify a target format for the data log platform; and
transform information extracted from the data log in the initial format to the target format; and
wherein the one or more processors, to forward the information associated with the data log, are configured to:
forward information extracted from the data log in the target format.
Ticehurst teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
identify an initial format of the data log based on receiving the data log (see Ticehurst paragraphs [0026] and [0050]-[0051]);
identify a target format for the data log platform (see Ticehurst paragraphs [0050]-[0051]); and
transform information extracted from the data log in the initial format to the target format (see Ticehurst paragraphs [0050]-[0051]); and
wherein the one or more processors, to forward the information associated with the data log, are configured to:
forward information extracted from the data log in the target format (see Ticehurst paragraphs [0050]-[0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Ellison by the teachings of Ticehurst because Ticehurst provides Ellison the benefit of being able to efficiently exchange log data between a source and a destination. This will increase the utility of Ellison by allowing log data to be analyzed in different formats and at different locations than a source system.
Claims 8-9 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellison et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2012/0290647) in view of Narasimhan et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2012/0179802).
As to claim 8, Ellison teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions, the set of instructions comprising:
one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a system, cause the system to:
receive a configuration … identifying a set of configuration settings for data logging of a runtime function associated with execution in a cloud computing environment of a cloud platform log (see Ellison paragraph [0054]-[0059] and the rejection of claim 1);
extract, from the configuration … , the set of configuration settings (see Ellison paragraph [0054]-[0059] and the rejection of claim 1);
configure, using the set of configuration settings, a listener service associated with receiving a data log in connection with an execution of the runtime function in the cloud environment associated with the cloud platform (see Ellison paragraph [0054]-[0059] and the rejection of claim 1);
…
receive, based on establishing the listener service and based on the execution of the runtime function, the data log (see Ellison paragraph [0054]-[0059] and the rejection of claim 1); and
Ellison does not clearly teach:
a configuration file;
wherein the listener service is configured as a platform extension of a platform that provides the runtime function,
forward, to a data log platform and based on receiving the data log, information associated with the data log.
Narasimhan teaches:
a configuration file (see paragraph [0059]. Narasimhan may access a central repository for control and configuration information, including commands sent to cloud agents);
wherein the listener service is configured as a platform extension of a platform that provides the runtime function (see Narasimhan paragraphs [0036] and [0038]. Narasimhan shows to establish an extension to a cloud platform that performs functions using APIs, including monitoring resources on the cloud. As noted in paragraphs [0107]-[0111], this may include collecting and organizing log data),
forward, to a data log platform and based on receiving the data log, information associated with the data log (see Narasimhan paragraphs [0107]-[0111]. Data logs from resources on the cloud may be collected and forwarded to a management platform, [0110]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Ellison by the teachings of Narasimhan because Narasimhan provides Ellison the benefit of increased flexibility in providing cloud management functions to a platform (see Narasimhan paragraph [0036]).
As to claim 9, Ellison as modified teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8, wherein the set of configuration settings includes one or more parameters identifying at least one of:
an application name for the runtime function (see Ellison paragraphs [0055]-[0059]),
a primary endpoint for the data log (see Ellison paragraphs [0055]-[0059]),
a secondary endpoint for the data log,
a format for at least one endpoint for the data log (see Ellison paragraphs [0055]-[0059]), or
a set of permissions associated with access to the data log.
As to claim 12, Ellison as modified teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8, wherein the data log includes at least one of:
an extension log, a platform log, or a function log (see Ellison paragraph [0057]).
As to claim 13, Ellison as modified teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8, wherein the data log includes an output of the runtime function (see Ellison paragraph [0057]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellison et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2012/0290647) in view of Narasimhan et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2012/0179802), and further in view of Agrawal et al. (US Patent 11,886,610).
As to claim 10, Ellison as modified teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8.
Ellison does not teach wherein the runtime function is a lambda function.
Agrawal teaches wherein the runtime function is a lambda function (see 6:13-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Ellison by the teachings of Agrawal because both references are directed towards monitoring and logging data in a cloud environment, and Agrawal provides Ellison the benefit of logging an additional type of data function. This will increase the utility and flexibility of Ellison by allowing Ellison to operate in more varied environments.
Claims 11, 14-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellison et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2012/0290647) in view of Narasimhan et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2012/0179802) and further in view of Erb (US Pre-Grant Publication 2015/0120915).
As to claim 11, Ellison as modified teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8.
Ellison does not teach wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to:
forward, to a failover storage component, the information associated with the data log;
identify, using an asynchronous processor, an event associated with the data log; and
transfer the data log from the failover storage component to the data log platform.
Erb teaches wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to:
forward, to a failover storage component, the information associated with the data log (see Erb paragraphs [0053] and [0094] and [0100]);
identify, using an asynchronous processor, an event associated with the data log (see Ellison paragraph [0054] and [0058]-[0059]. Data may be processed asynchronously); and
transfer the data log from the failover storage component to the data log platform (see Erb paragraphs [0053] and [0094] and [0100]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Ellison by the teachings of Erb because Erb provides Ellison the benefit of being able to exchange log data between a source and a destination. This will increase the utility of Ellison by allowing log data to be analyzed and reported in different locations than a source system.
As to claim 14, Ellison as modified teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8.
Ellison does not teach wherein the one or more instructions, that cause the system to forward the information associated with the data log to the data log platform, cause the system to:
forward the data log to a primary target and a secondary target.
Erb teaches wherein the one or more instructions, that cause the system to forward the information associated with the data log to the data log platform, cause the system to:
forward the data log to a primary target and a secondary target (see Erb paragraph [0081]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Ellison by the teachings of Erb because Erb provides Ellison the benefit of being able to exchange log data between a source and a destination. This will increase the utility of Ellison by allowing log data to be analyzed and reported in different locations than a source system.
As to claim 15, Ellison teaches a method, comprising:
receiving, by a device, information identifying a cloud platform associated with generating a data log (see Ellison paragraph [0054] and the rejection of claim 1);
identifying, by the device, an application programming interface (API) associated with the cloud platform (see Ellison paragraphs [0054] and [0083] and the rejection of claim 1);
establishing, by the device and using the API associated with the cloud platform, a listener service associated with receiving the data log asynchronously to an execution of a particular type of function in a cloud environment associated with the cloud platform (see Ellison paragraphs [0054]-[0059] and [0083] and the rejection of claim 1);
…
receiving, by the device and based on establishing the listener service and based on the execution of the particular type of function, the data log (see Ellison paragraph [0058]-[0059] and the rejection of claim 1); and
Ellison does not teach:
Wherein the listener service is configured as a platform extension of a platform that provides the particular type of function and using the API associated with the cloud platform;
forwarding, by the device, to a primary endpoint associated with a data log platform and a failover endpoint associated with a data storage platform, and
based on receiving the data log, information associated with the data log.
Narasimhan teaches
Wherein the listener service is configured as a platform extension of a platform that provides the particular type of function and using the API associated with the cloud platform (see Narasimhan paragraphs [0036] and [0038]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Ellison by the teachings of Narasimhan because Narasimhan provides Ellison the benefit of increased flexibility in providing cloud management functions to a platform (see Narasimhan paragraph [0036]).
Erb teaches:
forwarding, by the device, to a primary endpoint associated with a data log platform and a failover endpoint associated with a data storage platform (see Erb paragraphs [0053] and [0094] and [0100]), and
based on receiving the data log, information associated with the data log (see Erb paragraphs [0053] and [0094] and [0100]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Ellison by the teachings of Erb because Erb provides Ellison the benefit of being able to exchange log data between a source and a destination. This will increase the utility of Ellison by allowing log data to be analyzed and reported in different locations than a source system.
As to claim 18, Ellison as modified teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the data log includes a function log, and wherein the function log includes information identifying an output stream or an error stream associated with the particular type of function (see Ellison paragraph [0057]).
As to claim 19, Ellison as modified teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the data log includes an extension log, and wherein the extension log includes information identifying an output of an extension to the particular type of function (see Ellison paragraph [0057]).
As to claim 20, Ellison as modified teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the data log includes a platform log, and wherein the platform log includes information identifying an output of the cloud platform in connection with the execution of the particular type of function (see Ellison paragraph [0057]).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellison et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2012/0290647) in view of Narasimhan et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2012/0179802) and further in view of Erb (US Pre-Grant Publication 2015/0120915), and further in view of Ticehurst (US Pre-Grant Publication 2022/0350813).
As to claim 16, Ellison as modified teaches the method of claim 15.
Ellison does not teach further comprising:
parsing the data log based on receiving the data log; and
wherein forwarding the information associated with the data log comprises:
forwarding information extracted from parsing the data log.
Ticehurst teaches:
parsing the data log based on receiving the data log (see Ticehurst paragraphs [0050]-[0051]); and
wherein forwarding the information associated with the data log comprises:
forwarding information extracted from parsing the data log (see Ticehurst paragraphs [0050]-[0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Ellison by the teachings of Ticehurst because Ticehurst provides Ellison the benefit of being able to efficiently exchange log data between a source and a destination. This will increase the utility of Ellison by allowing log data to be analyzed in different formats and different locations than a source system.
As to claim 17, Ellison as modified teaches the method of claim 15.
Ellison does not teach further comprising:
identifying an initial format of the data log based on receiving the data log;
identifying a target format for the data log platform; and
transforming information extracted from the data log in the initial format to the target format; and
wherein forwarding the information associated with the data log comprises:
forwarding information extracted from the data log in the target format.
Ticehurst teaches:
identifying an initial format of the data log based on receiving the data log (see Ticehurst paragraphs [0026] and [0050]-[0051]);
identifying a target format for the data log platform (see Ticehurst paragraphs [0050]-[0051]); and
transforming information extracted from the data log in the initial format to the target format (see Ticehurst paragraphs [0050]-[0051]); and
wherein forwarding the information associated with the data log comprises:
forwarding information extracted from the data log in the target format (see Ticehurst paragraphs [0050]-[0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Ellison by the teachings of Ticehurst because Ticehurst provides Ellison the benefit of being able to efficiently exchange log data between a source and a destination. This will increase the utility of Ellison by allowing log data to be analyzed in different formats and different locations than a source system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 USC 101 Rejection
Applicant included arguments regarding why claim 1 was patent eligible in view of 35 USC 101. It is noted that Applicant concluded these arguments by stating that “Independent claims 8 and 15, as amended, recited similar features and therefore, independent claims 1, 8, and 15, as amended, and the claims that depend thereon, are patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
In response to this argument, it is initially noted that claims 8 and 15 were not amended in the response of 8 July 2026.
It is also noted that claim 8 lacks several claimed features of claim 1 that Applicant relies upon in their arguments. As such, claims 8-14 remain rejected under 35 USC 101.
Applicant is reminded that unclaimed features from the specification do not receive patentable weight until claimed.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES D ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-3938. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5:30 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, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached at 5712701760. 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.
/CHARLES D ADAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165
Prosecution Insights