DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to an application filed 14 February 2025, which claims domestic priority to a provisional application filed 16 April 2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation the processor in the wherein the first input device limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear how to interpret this limitation.
To the extent that other claims rely on claims that are rejected under 35 USC 112 and fail to correct the deficiencies of the claims they rely on, those other claims are rejected for the same reasons as the claims they rely on. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-20 are within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-20 are drawn to a system for predicting a patient medical event, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine).
Prong 1 of Step 2A
Claim 1 recites: An apparatus, comprising:
a central processing computer;
a distributed ledger and blockchain technology system;
a personal monitoring device, wherein the personal monitoring device is associated with an individual, and further wherein the personal monitoring device further comprises:
a first input device;
a first processor;
a first database, wherein the first database stores a personal healthcare record of or for the individual, and further wherein the first database stores information for updating the personal healthcare record, and further wherein the first database stores information for updating one of more of an electronic healthcare record, an electronic medical record, an electronic dental record, an electronic pharmacy record, or an electronic behavioral healthcare record, of or for the individual;
a first transmitter;
a first receiver; and
a first output device; and
a provider communication device, wherein the provider communication device is associated with a healthcare provider of or for the individual, and further wherein the provider communication device further comprises:
a second input device;
a second processor;
a second database, wherein the second database stores an electronic healthcare record, an electronic medical record, an electronic dental record, an electronic pharmacy record, or an electronic behavioral healthcare record, of or for the individual, and further wherein the second database stores information for updating the electronic healthcare record, the electronic medical record, the electronic dental record, the electronic pharmacy record, or the electronic behavioral healthcare record, and for updating the personal healthcare record, and further wherein the second database stores information for updating a plurality of one of more electronic healthcare records, electronic medical records, electronic dental records, electronic pharmacy records, electronic behavioral healthcare records, or personal healthcare records, of or for the individual;
a second transmitter;
a second receiver; and
and the personal healthcare record, of or for the individual, in a database and in the distributed ledger and blockchain technology system.
The underlined limitations as shown above, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract ideas of a certain method of organizing human activity because they recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions – in this case the steps of storing records for updating medical records and determining whether a user has previously experienced a given issue.), e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea(s) are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Dependent claims 2-19 include other limitations, for example claims 2, 6-13, 16 and 17 recite further storing and updating medical records and claims 19 and 20 recite sending an alert, but these only serve to further narrow the abstract idea, and a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, even if the judicial exception is narrow, e.g. see MPEP 2106.04. Additionally, any limitations in dependent claims 2-19 not addressed above are deemed additional elements to the abstract idea, and will be further addressed below. Hence dependent claims 2-19 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claim 1.
Prong 2 of Step 2A
Claims 1-20 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. any limitations that are not identified as part of the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of the blockchain technology system and the structural components of the various computing devices, which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see paragraphs 112, 162, 279 and 296 of the present Specification, see MPEP 2106.05(f); and/or
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use – for example, the claim language limiting the records to medical data, which amounts to limiting the abstract idea to the field of healthcare, see MPEP 2106.05(h); and/or
adding insignificant extrasolution activity to the abstract idea, for example mere data gathering, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, and/or insignificant application (e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Additionally, dependent claims 2-19 include other limitations, but these limitations also amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (e.g. the technology recited in claims 2-4 and 15-16, and the recitation of AI related processes of claims 5 and 14), generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. the types of data disclosed in dependent claims 2-19), and/or do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited in independent claim 1, and hence also do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the structural components of the computer the recitation of the blockchain technology system and the structural components of the various computing devices), as stated above, are directed towards no more than limitations that amount to mere instructions to apply the exception, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and/or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity comprises limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by:
The Specification expressly disclosing that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature:
paragraphs 112, 162, 279 and 296 of the Specification discloses that the additional elements (i.e. the recitation of the blockchain technology system and the structural components of the various computing devices) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems that are configured to perform generic computer functions (i.e. receive and process data) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry (i.e. healthcare);
Relevant court decisions: The following are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II):
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.");
iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and
v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition).
Dependent claims 2-19 include other limitations, but none of these limitations are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because, as stated above, the aforementioned dependent claims do not recite any additional elements not already recited in independent claim 1, and/or the additional elements recited in the aforementioned dependent claims similarly amount to mere instructions to apply the exception (e.g. the technology recited in claims 2-4 and 15-16, and the recitation of AI related processes of claims 5 and 14), and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. the types of data disclosed in dependent claims 2-19), and hence do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1-20 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
A Note on Intended Use
A recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform, see MPEP 2114 (II) and Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). “Language that suggest or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation”, see MPEP 2111.04.
The following limitation is interpreted as an intended use of the claimed invention:
The prior art is capable of performing the intended use recitation, therefore the prior art meets the limitations.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Joao (U.S. PG-Pub 2023/0238152 A1), hereinafter Joao, further in view of McEwing et al. (U.S. PG-Pub 2020/0350072 A1), hereinafter McEwing.
As per claim 1, Joao discloses An apparatus (Joao, see Figs. 13 and 26.), comprising:
a central processing computer (Joao, see Figs. 1 #10 and 13 #110A, and corresponding text.);
a distributed ledger and blockchain technology system (Joao, see Fig. 13 #110B and corresponding text.);
a personal monitoring device, wherein the personal monitoring device is associated with an individual, and further wherein the personal monitoring device further comprises (Joao, see Fig. 13 #s 41 and 94, and corresponding text. Personal monitoring system is operative to be controlled by patient communication device, see paragraph 519. See also Fig. 5 #40D.):
a first input device; a first processor (Joao, paragraph 519; see also Fig. 5 #s 40J and 40A.);
a first database, wherein the first database stores a personal healthcare record of or for the individual, and further wherein the first database stores information for updating the personal healthcare record (Joao, monitoring device contains a database for storing obtained patient data, see paragraphs 355 and 519; see paragraphs 221-323. See also Fig. 5 #40H), and
further wherein the first database stores information for updating one of more of an electronic healthcare record, an electronic medical record, an electronic dental record, an electronic pharmacy record, or an electronic behavioral healthcare record, of or for the individual (Joao, monitoring device contains a database for storing obtained patient data to update patient records locally and centrally, see paragraphs 355 and 519; see paragraphs 221-323.);
a first transmitter; a first receiver; and a first output device (Joao, paragraph 519. See also Fig. 5 #s 40F, 40G and 40I.); and
a provider communication device, wherein the provider communication device is associated with a healthcare provider of or for the individual, and further wherein the provider communication device further comprises (Joao, see Fig. 13 #21 and corresponding text.):
a second input device; a second processor (Joao, see Fig. 14 #s 20A and 20D, and paragraph 468.);
a second database, wherein the second database stores an electronic healthcare record, an electronic medical record, an electronic dental record, an electronic pharmacy record, or an electronic behavioral healthcare record, of or for the individual (Joao, paragraph 336 discloses that the provider communication device database 20H can contain the same data available at central processing database 10H, see paragraphs 221-323.), and
further wherein the second database stores information for updating the electronic healthcare record, the electronic medical record, the electronic dental record, the electronic pharmacy record, or the electronic behavioral healthcare record, and for updating the personal healthcare record (Joao, paragraph 336 discloses that the provider communication device database 20H can contain the same data available at central processing database 10H, see paragraph 221-323.), and
further wherein the second database stores information for updating a plurality of one of more electronic healthcare records, electronic medical records, electronic dental records, electronic pharmacy records, electronic behavioral healthcare records, or personal healthcare records, of or for the individual (Joao, paragraph 336 discloses that the provider communication device database 20H can contain the same data available at central processing database 10H, see paragraph 221-323.),
a second transmitter; a second receiver; a second output device (Joao, see Fig. 14 #s 20F, 20G and 20I, and paragraph 468.); and
wherein the first input device inputs a note or a message containing healthcare information regarding a healthcare condition of the individual, wherein the note or the message contains text information, audio information, and a picture, photograph, or video information, further wherein first database stores the note or the message (Patient enabled to input healthcare note into system, see paragraphs 473 and 476. Patient specifically uses patient communication device to enter notes, see paragraph 709-711 and 765-768. Personal monitoring system is operative to be controlled by patient communication device, see paragraph 519.), and
further wherein the first processor or the personal monitoring device generates a healthcare alert message (Joao, Fig. 26 and corresponding text.), and
further wherein the first transmitter transmits the healthcare alert message to the central processing computer and to the provider communication device, wherein the central processing computer updates the plurality of one of more of the electronic healthcare records, the electronic medical records, the electronic dental records, the electronic pharmacy records, or the electronic behavioral healthcare records, and the personal healthcare record, of or for the individual (Joao, Fig. 26 and corresponding text.), and
further wherein the central processing computer stores information regarding the note, the message, the healthcare alert message, and information regarding any updates to the plurality of any one of more of the electronic healthcare records, the electronic medical records, the electronic dental records, the electronic pharmacy records, or the electronic behavioral healthcare records, and the personal healthcare record, of or for the individual, in a database and in the distributed ledger and blockchain technology system (Joao, see Fig. 26 and corresponding text and paragraphs 243 and 765-768.).
Joao fails to explicitly disclose wherein the processor processes the healthcare information and determines whether or not the individual has previously experienced the healthcare condition, and
McEwing teaches that it was old and well known in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to identify whether a user previously experienced a condition (See McEwing, paragraphs 48, 85, 86, 347, 426 and 838-840.) in order to locate a patient’s health records that are relevant to a given disease.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus for providing healthcare services of Joao to include identifying whether a user previously experienced a condition, as taught by McEwing, in order to provide apparatus for providing healthcare services that can locate health records that are relevant to a given disease.
Both Joao and McEwing are directed to the electronic processing of patient healthcare data and specifically to the display of monitored patient data. Moreover, merely adding a well-known element into a well-known system, to produce a predictable result to one of ordinary skill in the art, does not render the invention patentably distinct over such combination (see MPEP 2141).
As per claims 2-20, Joao/XXX discloses claim 1, discussed above. Joao also discloses:
2. wherein the central processing computer (Joao, see Figs. 1 #10 and 13 #110A, and corresponding text.) further comprises:
a third input device; a third processor (Joao, see Fig. 2 #s 10D and 10A.);
a third database, wherein the third database stores any number of electronic healthcare records, electronic medical records, electronic dental records, electronic pharmacy records, electronic behavioral healthcare records, of or for the individual, and further wherein the third database stores the personal healthcare record of or for the individual, and further wherein the third database stores information for updating any or all of the electronic healthcare records, the electronic medical records, the electronic dental records, the electronic pharmacy records, or the electronic behavioral healthcare records, and for updating the personal healthcare record (Joao, see Fig. 2 #10H and paragraphs 221-323.);
a third transmitter; a third receiver; and a third output device (Joao, see Fig. 2 #s 10F, 10G and 10I.);
3. wherein the first input device further comprises: a camera; an audio recording device; and a video recording device (Joao, Fig. 5 #40J and corresponding text.);
4. wherein the first output device is a display screen or a speaker (Joao, Fig. 5 #40E and corresponding text.);
5. wherein the first processor or the personal monitoring device uses an artificial intelligence (AI) software program, algorithm, or application, a machine language software program, algorithm, or application, or a natural language software program, algorithms, or application, to determines whether or not the individual has previously experienced the healthcare condition (Joao discloses use of AI or machine learning via various devices, see paragraphs 570, 806-808 and 815. McEwing discloses determining whether a user has previously experienced the condition, as shown above.);
6. wherein the personal monitoring device updates the plurality of one of more of the electronic healthcare records, the electronic medical records, the electronic dental records, the electronic pharmacy records, or the electronic behavioral healthcare records, and the personal healthcare record, of or for the individual (Joao, monitoring device contains a database for storing obtained patient data, see paragraphs 355 and 519; see paragraphs 221-323. See also Fig. 5 #40H);
7. wherein the provider communication device updates the plurality of one of more of the electronic healthcare records, the electronic medical records, the electronic dental records, the electronic pharmacy records, or the electronic behavioral healthcare records, and the personal healthcare record, of or for the individual (Joao, paragraph 336 discloses that the provider communication device database 20H can contain the same data available at central processing database 10H, see paragraph 221-323.);
8. wherein the central processing computer uses information contained in a look-up table, a master index table, or data or information conversion information, to update the plurality of one of more of the electronic healthcare records, the electronic medical records, the electronic dental records, the electronic pharmacy records, or the electronic behavioral healthcare records, and the personal healthcare record, of or for the individual (Joao, see paragraph 227.);
9. wherein the personal monitoring device uses information contained in a look-up table, a master index table, or data or information conversion information, to update the plurality of one of more of the electronic healthcare records, the electronic medical records, the electronic dental records, the electronic pharmacy records, or the electronic behavioral healthcare records, and the personal healthcare record, of or for the individual (Joao, see paragraph 355; see paragraph 227.);
10. wherein the provider communication device uses information contained in a look-up table, a master index table, or data or information conversion information, to update the plurality of one of more of the electronic healthcare records, the electronic medical records, the electronic dental records, the electronic pharmacy records, or the electronic behavioral healthcare records, and the personal healthcare record, of or for the individual (Joao, see paragraph 336; see paragraph 227.);
11. wherein the second input device enters second healthcare information regarding the healthcare condition or regarding a second healthcare condition regarding the individual into the provider communication device, and further wherein the second healthcare information is entered into the electronic healthcare record, the electronic medical record, the electronic dental record, the electronic pharmacy record, or the electronic behavioral healthcare record, of or for the individual (Joao, see paragraphs 327 and 336; see paragraphs 221-323.);
12. wherein the second input device enters a second note or a second message by the healthcare provider into the provider communication device (Joao, see paragraph 327.);
13. wherein the second processor or the provider communication device determines whether or not the individual has previously experienced the healthcare condition or the second healthcare condition (Joao discloses the second processor and communication device, see Fig. 1 and corresponding text. McEwing discloses determining whether a user has previously experienced the condition, as shown above.);
14. wherein the second processor or the provider communication device uses an artificial intelligence (AI) software program, algorithm, or application, a machine language software program, algorithm, or application, or a natural language software program, algorithms, or application, to determine whether or not the individual has previously experienced the healthcare condition or the second healthcare condition (McEwing discloses determining whether a user has previously experienced the condition, as shown above.);
15. wherein first input device further comprises: a device for measuring and for monitoring heart rate, pulse rate, blood pressure, body temperature, blood glucose level, blood sugar level, blood oxygen level, or oxygen saturation level (Joao, paragraphs 346-348.);
16. wherein the personal monitoring device is programmed to detect a second healthcare condition, wherein the second healthcare condition is a detection of an unhealthy, abnormal, or dangerous, heart rate, pulse rate, blood pressure, body temperature, blood glucose level, blood sugar level, blood oxygen level, or oxygen saturation level, and further wherein the personal monitoring device detect the unhealthy, abnormal, or dangerous, heart rate, pulse rate, blood pressure, body temperature, blood glucose level, blood sugar level, blood oxygen level, or oxygen saturation level (Patient communication device 41 in communication with various monitoring system devices 94 is operative to take measurements and determine whether the measured amount is abnormal or dangerous, see paragraphs 720, 721 and 723.), and
further wherein the personal monitoring device provides a visual indication or an audible indication regarding the unhealthy, abnormal, or dangerous, heart rate, pulse rate, blood pressure, body temperature, blood glucose level, blood sugar level, blood oxygen level, or oxygen saturation level, via a display, via a speaker, or via an indicator light (Patient communication device 41 generates a report concerning the alert, see paragraph 724. A report is a visual indication that is viewed via a display. See also paragraph 521.);
17. wherein the personal monitoring device stores a second note or a second message regarding the second healthcare condition or the unhealthy, abnormal, or dangerous, heart rate, pulse rate, blood pressure, body temperature, blood glucose level, blood sugar level, blood oxygen level, or oxygen saturation level (Patient communication device 41 generates a report concerning the alert, see paragraph 724.);
18. wherein the personal monitoring device determines whether or not the individual has previously experienced the second healthcare condition or has previously experienced the unhealthy, abnormal, or dangerous, heart rate, pulse rate, blood pressure, body temperature, blood glucose level, blood sugar level, blood oxygen level, or oxygen saturation level (Joao discloses the personal monitoring device, see Fig. 13 and corresponding text. McEwing discloses determining whether a user has previously experienced the condition, as shown above.);
19. wherein the first processor or the personal monitoring device generates a healthcare emergency alert message, and further wherein the first transmitter transmits the healthcare emergency alert message to the provider communication device (Joao, paragraph 724.); and
20. wherein the first transmitter transmits the healthcare emergency alert message to the central processing computer (Joao, paragraph 724.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mark Holcomb, whose telephone number is 571.270.1382. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8-5). If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Kambiz Abdi, can be reached at 571.272.6702.
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.
/MARK HOLCOMB/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685
10 February 2026