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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in response to an amendment received on 5/13/26.
2. Claims 1-2, 11-12, 20 are amended.
3. Claims 1-20 are pending.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Applicant argues#1
Double Patenting
Claims 1-20 stand provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as claiming
the same invention as that of claims 1-20 of co-pending U.S. Application No.
18/809,209.
Applicant respectfully reconsideration, as the rejections are now moot, as the
claims for both co-pending U.S. Application No. 18/809,209 and the present
application have been substantively modified.
Examiner Response
The Double Patenting Rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant argues#2
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 12 stand objected to for informalities.
The claims have been amended to address the error noted in the objection.
Examiner Response
The claim objection for claims 2&12 are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant argues#3
Step 2A, Prong One - The amended claims do not recite an abstract idea.
The Examiner has characterized the claims as reciting commercial interactions "for a call representative to interact with a user during a call session"
and as a mental process performable "by a human with a pen and paper". The
amended claims, however, are not directed to such activities. As amended, each
independent claim requires, inter alia, automatic determination, on a per-character
basis, of a category from a plurality of categories that is consistent with each
character typed by the call representative; category-based filtering of database
results; presentation of a ranked list of those filtered results in a selectable menu
that is updated in real-time as each character is detected; and generation of a
persistent categorical constraint (the "static filter object") that restricts the ranked
list of results for each subsequent character input to entries matching both the
static filter object and the subsequent character input.
These features cannot practically be performed in the human mind, with pen
and paper, or as a method of organizing human activity. They are inherent to a
real-time, character-by-character interactive computer user interface that filters
database records as the user types. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) (a claim
does not recite a mental process where the claimed limitations "cannot practically
be performed in the human mind"). A human call representative cannot, in real
time and per keystroke, automatically categorize each typed character, filter and
re-rank database entries across multiple categories, and re-render an updated
selectable menu while remaining engaged in a live call session with the user.
Examiner Response
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The limitations (determination, on a per-character basis, of a category from a plurality of categories that is consistent with each character typed by the call representative; category-based filtering of database results; presentation of a ranked list of those filtered results in a selectable menu that is updated in real-time as each character is detected; and generation of a persistent categorical constraint (the "static filter object") that restricts the ranked list of results for each subsequent character input to entries matching both the static filter object and the subsequent character input) is part of the identified abstract idea (both a commercial interaction and a mental process).
The user is interacting with a customer service representative, who is using the intelligent search box corresponding to a claim interface for displaying the list of results in a selectable menu.
Therefore, the claims are reciting a commercial interaction (the identified abstract idea).
As far the claims reciting a mental process, applicant is pointed to the MPEP section:
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) states in Section III (B):
B. A Claim That Encompasses a Human Performing the Step(s) Mentally With or Without a Physical Aid Recites a Mental Process.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1139, 120 USPQ2d at 1474 (holding that claims to the mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper").
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., a mathematical calculation) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another. For instance, in CyberSource, the court determined that the step of "constructing a map of credit card numbers" was a limitation that was able to be performed "by writing down a list of credit card transactions made from a particular IP address." In making this determination, the court looked to the specification, which explained that the claimed map was nothing more than a listing of several (e.g., four) credit card transactions. The court concluded that this step was able to be performed mentally with a pen and paper, and therefore, it qualified as a mental process. 654 F.3d at 1372-73, 99 USPQ2d at 1695. See also Flook, 437 U.S. at 586, 198 USPQ at 196 (claimed "computations can be made by pencil and paper calculations"); University of Florida Research Foundation, Inc. v. General Electric Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1367, 129 USPQ2d 1409, 1411-12 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (relying on specification’s description of the claimed analysis and manipulation of data as being performed mentally "‘using pen and paper methodologies, such as flowsheets and patient charts’"); Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1318, 120 USPQ2d at 1360 (although claimed as computer-implemented, steps of screening messages can be "performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper").
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Now turning to the instant specification, the specification discloses in para 208, the intelligent search box used for filtering the results and ranking the results.
The use of the intelligent search box to perform the mental steps (the identified abstract idea steps) does not negate the mental nature of the identified abstract lmitations.
[0208] As another example, if the call representative 196 initially inputs a number into the intelligent search box 244, 508, the computing system 100 can filter database results for categories that begin with a number, such as an address, policy number, vehicle year, etc. The computing system 100 may then provide a ranked list of results (e.g., list of insurance policies) that match the information inputted by the call representative 196. Each character inputted by the call representative 196 can comprise an additional filter, such that the ranked list of results only yields policies that match the inputted characters. Thus, the call representative 196 can quickly filter through the database(s) to select the relevant entry pertaining to the call session.
Therefore the claims are also reciting a mental process.
The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues#4
The recited operations are inherently rooted in computer technology.
Step 2A, Prong Two - Even if an abstract idea were recited, the claims integrate
any such idea into a practical application.
The amended claims recite a specific technical improvement to a graphical
user interface employed by call representatives during live call sessions. As
described in the specification, prior call-intake interfaces required call
representatives to type complete search strings or to navigate multiple drop-down
lists and select among large sets of candidate results, which is time-consuming,
error-prone, and dependent on the representative's familiarity with the underlying
record structure. See " [0073]-[0076] and the discussion of conventional search
tools generally. The claimed solution - automatic per-character category
determination combined with category-based filtering, a real-time updated ranked
menu, and a persistent categorical static filter object - reduces input time and
operator error during live call sessions and improves the accuracy and efficiency of
the information-gathering process. See " [0073]-[0076], [0205]-[0210].
The amended claims are analogous to those in Core Wireless. They are not
directed merely to the abstract concept of "searching", but rather to a specific
manner of presenting search information that is both technical in character and
rooted in the operation of the computer interface itself. The recited per-character
category determination, the real-time updating selectable menu, and the persistent
categorical static filter object are not mere result-oriented limitations; they
prescribe specific computer-implemented mechanisms that change how the
interface functions and how results are filtered, ranked, and constrained. See MPEP
§ 2106.04(d)(1) (improvements to a computer or other technology are indicative of
a practical application).
The recited improvement is not merely "applying" a search on a generic
computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), non is it insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP §
2106.05(g)). The claims define the architecture and operation of the intelligent
search feature itself - how each keystroke triggers automatic categorization and
database filtering, how results are surfaced and updated in real time, and how a
categorical constraint is generated and applied to subsequent character inputs.
These limitations meaningfully restrict the claims and impose real, technical limits
on practicing the alleged abstract idea.
Accordingly, the amended claims integrate any judicial exception, arguendo,
into a practical application, and are patent-eligible at Step 2A, Prong Two.
Examiner Response
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claimed invention is unlike the invention in Core Wireless, where courts looked to
the specification and determined that the user interface was improved upon.
On pages 9-10 of the decision recites: " The specification confirms that these claims
disclose an improved user interface for electronic devices, particularly those with small
screens. It teaches that the prior art interfaces had many deficits relating to the efficient
functioning of the computer, requiring a user "to scroll around and switch views many
times to find the right data/functionality." '020 patent at 1:47-49. Because small screens
"tend to need data and functionality divided into many layers or views, id, at 1:29-30,
prior art interfaces required users to drill down through many layers to get to desired
data or functionality, id. at 1:29-37. That process could "seem slow, complex and
difficult to learn, particularly to novice users. "id, at 1:45-46. The disclosed invention
improves the efficiency of using the electronic device by bringing together "a
limited list of common functions and commonly accessed stored data, " which
can be accessed directly from the main menu. Id. at 2:55-59. Displaying selected
data or functions of interest in the summary window allows the user to see the
most relevant data or functions "without actually opening the application up. "id.
at 3:53-55, The speed of a users navigation through various views and windows can be
improved because it "saves the user from navigating to the required application,
opening it up, and then navigating within that application to enable the data of interest to
be seen or a function of interest to be activated, "id, at 2:35-39. Rather than paging
through multiple screens of options, "only three steps may be needed from start up to
reaching the required data/functionality. id. at 3:2-3. This language dearly
indicates that the claims are directed to an improvement in the functioning of
computers, particularly those with small screens.
Whereas in the instant specification, discloses:
[0058] As an example, the user 194 may initiate a first notice of loss on the user's
computing device 190 via one or more application sessions and begin, but not
complete, an information gathering process for a claim event (e.g., a vehicle
collision). The dynamic content generator 155 can automatically save a state of a
claim file 112 corresponding to the information gathering process for the user
194, such that the user 194 does not need to repeat any portion of the information
gathering process. In certain examples, a call center representative 196 may be
informed by the computing system 100 that a claim file 112 has been started by a
particular user 194. The call center representative 196 may initiate a call session
with the user 194 and view the assistance interface presented via execution of the
assistance application 197, which may reflect the current state of the claim file
112 to enable the information gathering process to proceed based on the
information already provided by the user 194. As provided herein, the dynamic
content generator 155 can cause the assistance interface to be generated on the
display screen of the call center representative's computing device 195 and
implement dynamic scripting that provides the call center representative 196 with
a real-time script to read during the call session with the user 194.
[0125] Examples described herein can implement engagement monitoring
techniques corresponding to a user's engagement with the various user
interfaces described herein. In such examples, the system can monitor various
combinations of the user's inputs, view-time or display-time on any particular
page or screen, the content presented on the display of the user's computing
device 190 at any given time, image data of the user's face (e.g., showing a lack of
interest), and the like. Based on the engagement information of a particular user
194 (e.g., a claimant or a corroborating party), the dynamic content generator 155
can dynamically adjust the content flows presented to the user 194 to maximize
engagement and/or information gathering. In one example, the dynamic content
generator 155 may determine, based on the engagement data received from
monitoring the user 194, that the user 194 is losing interest in engaging with a
particular user interface or content item, and adjust the content presented on the
service application 192 or browser application in order to increase the user's
engagement. The determination of engagement level of a user 194 by the dynamic
content generator 155 may be based on a confidence threshold or probability of
the user 194 exiting the application within a given time frame (e.g., the next five
seconds).
[0208] As another example, if the call representative 196 initially inputs a number into the intelligent search box 244, 508, the computing system 100 can filter database results for categories that begin with a number, such as an address, policy number, vehicle year, etc. The computing system 100 may then provide a ranked list of results (e.g., list of insurance policies) that match the information inputted by the call representative 196. Each character inputted by the call representative 196 can comprise an additional filter, such that the ranked list of results only yields policies that match the inputted characters. Thus, the call representative 196 can quickly filter through the database(s) to select the relevant entry pertaining to the call session.
[0209] According to various examples, based on the call representative’s selection of a menu item in the selectable menu of ranked search results, the computing system 100 can generate a static filter object or element within the search box 244, 508 (1615). The static filter object or element can comprise an additional filtering layer (e.g., on top of the character-by-character filtering that the computing system 100 performs dynamically). The static filter object can be categorical (e.g., a name filter, policy number filter, address filter, etc.) such that results for any additional characters inputted into the intelligent search box 244, 508 must match those characters and also match the static filter object(s). As provided herein, multiple static filter objects can be selected and configured by the call representative 196.
There is no improvement to the technology of the GUI (the claim interface). The user
interface is recited at a high level of generality and is being used as tool to implement
the identified abstract idea.
Furthermore there is no improvement to the “intelligent search box”, the intelligent search box is operating in it ordinary capacity (“an intelligent search box” interprets character inputs by analyzing keystrokes to retrieve and filter relevant results).
Therefore the claims in the instant invention are unlike the claims in Core Wireless V
LG.
In the Federal Circuit decision in TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
V. CQG, INC., on page 6, the court stated, "the claims require a specific, structured
graphical user interface paired with a prescribed functionality directly related to the
graphical user interface's structure that is addressed to and resolves a specifically
identified problem in the prior state of the art."
As was explained above, the claim interface is recited at a high level of generality and is being used as a tool to implement the steps of the identified abstract idea, see MPEP
2106.05(f).
Therefore, the claims are unlike the claims in Trading Technologies.
The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues#5
Step 2B - The amended claims recite significantly more than any alleged abstract
idea.
Even were the Office to maintain that the amended claims recite an abstract
idea not integrated into a practical application, the claims nonetheless recite
significantly more than any such idea. As an ordered combination, the recited
intelligent search box, per-character category determination from a plurality of
categories, category-based database filtering, real-time updating selectable menu,
and persistent categorical static filter object are not well-understood, routine, or
conventional activities previously known in the call center search arts. The Office
Action identifies no evidence under Berkheimer V. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir.
2018), and MPEP § 2106.05(d) establishing that this ordered combination of
features is conventional. Indeed, the very fact that the Office relies on a
combination of multiple references (Hernandez and Jensen) under § 103 to address
only some of the recited features confirms that the recited combination is not
routine or conventional.
Withdrawal of the § 101 rejection is respectfully requested.
Examiner Response
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant misapprehends when a Berkheimer analysis is required under current examination policy. Simply put, Examiner is not required under current Examination policy to evaluate under Step 2B, whether additional elements constitute “well-understood, routine, and conventional activities,” [“WURC activities”] unless an additional element(s) were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong 2. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(I). Here, the condition precedent was not met and the Non-Final Office Action determined the additional elements were no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea exception using a computer. MPEP § 2106.05(f). Thus, Examiner was not required to determine a Berkheimer analysis. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(I). (See Section 101 rejection below).
The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues#6
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
B. Neither reference, alone or in combination, teaches per-character automatic
categorization or category-based per-character database filtering.
Independent claim 1, as amended, requires that "for each detected
character" typed by the call representative into the intelligent search box, the
computing system automatically determines, from a plurality of categories, a
category that is consistent with the detected character and filters, based on the
determined category, a set of results from the one or more claim file databases that
match the detected character. Independent claims 11 and 20 contain
commensurate limitations.
Hernandez does not teach or suggest these features. The "filter" operations
in Hernandez relied upon by the Office Action (11 [0017], [0031], [0060]) are
directed to filtering the text stream of the customer's spoken conversation in order
to identify spoken keywords for subsequent database searching. They are not
directed to filtering database results on a per-character basis as the call
representative types individual characters into an intelligent search box. Indeed,
C. Neither reference teaches the recited "static filter object" as amended.
Each independent claim, as amended, recites that the static filter object
generated in response to a selection from the selectable menu comprises "a
persistent categorical constraint that, for each subsequent character input detected
within the intelligent search box, restricts the ranked list of results to entries from
the one or more claim file databases that match both the static filter object and the
subsequent character input."
Because neither Hernandez non Jensen teaches or suggests the recited per-
character automatic categorization, category-based per-character database
filtering, real-time updating selectable menu, or the persistent categorical static
filter object as recited in amended claims 1, 11, and 20, the proposed combination
of Hernandez and Jensen fails to render the independent claims obvious. The Office
Action's asserted motivation to combine - to provide improvements in faster and
more accurate search results in call center environments - does not bridge this
gap, because the underlying combined disclosure still lacks the recited per-
character, category-aware filtering and persistent categorical constraint
architecture. Accordingly, for reasons stated, independent Claims 1, 11 and 20 are
allowable over the cited references. The remaining dependent claims recite
additional features and are therefore also allowable for reasons that include those
stated.
Examiner Response
Based on the amendments to the claims, the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections- 35 U.S.C § 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.
1. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 11, 20 are directed to a system, method and computer readable medium which are statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Representative Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
A computing system comprising: a network communication interface;
one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to:
generate a claim interface for a call representative to interact with a user during a call session, the claim interface providing the call representative with an intelligent search feature comprising an intelligent search box that corresponds to one or more claim file databases;
detect individual characters typed by the call representative into the intelligent search box during the call session;
for each detected character, (i) automatically determine, from a plurality of categories, a category that is consistent with detected character, (ii) filter based on the determined category, a set of results from the one or more claim file databases that match the detected character and (iii) provide a ranked list of the filtered results in a selectable menu that is updated in real time on the claim interface as each character is detected;
and
based on a selection input by the call representative of a result in the selectable menu, generate a static filter object within the intelligent search box of the intelligent search feature, the static filter object comprising a persistent categorical constraint that, for each subsequent character input detected within the intelligent search box, restricts the ranked list of results to entries from the one or more claim file databases that match both the static filter object and the subsequent character input.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity.
The claim recites elements that are in bold above, which covers performance of the limitation as a commercial interaction (business relations), steps for assisting a user with a call representative to assist in processing of claims, (e.g., for a call representative to interact with a user during a call session, providing the call representative with an search feature comprising an search box that corresponds to one or more claim file databases; determine, from a plurality of categories, a category that is consistent with detected character, (ii) filter based on the determined category, a set of results from the one or more claim file databases that match the detected character and (iii) provide a ranked list of the filtered results in a selectable menu that is updated in real time on the claim interface as each character is detected; and based on a selection input by the call representative of a result in the selectable menu, generate a static filter object within the search box of the search feature, the static filter object comprising a persistent categorical constraint that, for each subsequent character input detected within the search box, restricts the ranked list of results to entries from the one or more claim file databases that match both the static filter object and the subsequent character input.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a Commercial Interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Additionally the claims are also, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as a mental process, more specifically a concept performed mentally by a human with a pen and paper, (steps for assisting a user with a call representative to assist in processing of claims), (e.g., for a call representative to interact with a user during a call session, providing the call representative with an search feature comprising an search box that corresponds to one or more claim file databases; determine, from a plurality of categories, a category that is consistent with detected character, (ii) filter based on the determined category, a set of results from the one or more claim file databases that match the detected character and (iii) provide a ranked list of the filtered results in a selectable menu that is updated in real time on the claim interface as each character is detected; and based on a selection input by the call representative of a result in the selectable menu, generate a static filter object within the search box of the search feature, the static filter object comprising a persistent categorical constraint that, for each subsequent character input detected within the search box, restricts the ranked list of results to entries from the one or more claim file databases that match both the static filter object and the subsequent character input.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a certain method of a concept performed in the human mind, then it falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 11,20 are abstract for similar reasons.
(Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h).
Claims 1, 11, 20 includes the following additional elements:
-A network communication interface
-One or more processors
-A claim interface
- A memory
-A claim file database
-An intelligent search feature comprising an intelligent search box
-A non-transitory computer readable medium
The network communication interface, one or more processors, claim file database, claim interface, memory, intelligent search feature comprising an intelligent search box and a non-transitory computer readable medium are recited at a high level of generality and are being used in their ordinary capacity and are being used as a tool for implementing the steps of the identified abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), where applying a computer or using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea is not indicative of a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea
Therefore claims 1, 11, 20 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception.
Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea, on or with the use of generic computer components, or even without any computer components, cannot provide an inventive concept - rendering the claim patent ineligible. Thus claims 1, 11, 20 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-19 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1,11, 20 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and a Mental Process and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above.
Therefore, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims (2-10, 12-19) are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
CONCLUSION
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MOHAMMAD Z SHAIKH whose telephone number is (571)270-3444. The examiner can normally be reached M-T, 9-600; Fri, 8-11, 3-5.
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, BENNETT SIGMOND can be reached at 303-297-4411. 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.
/MOHAMMAD Z SHAIKH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694 5/29/2026
Prosecution Insights