DETAILED ACTION
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 .
1. This is in response to communication filed on 6/20/25 in which claims 1-20 are pending.
Double Patenting
2. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,348420 to Prabagaren. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both claim the same method and systems for parallel processing of batch communications during data validation using a plurality of independent processing streams.
U.S. Patent No. 12,348420
U.S. Application No. 19/245149
1. A system for parallel processing of batch communications during data validation using a plurality of independent processing streams, the system comprising:
one or more processors; and a non-transitory, computer readable medium comprising instructions when executed by one or more processors causes operations comprising:
receiving a plurality of communications for batch processing during a predetermined time period; processing, with a batch configuration file, a first communication of the plurality of communications to determine that the first communication is received from a first source and to determine a first time stamp for the first communication that corresponds to the predetermined time period;
without altering information in the first communication, generating a first metadata tag based on the first source and the first time stamp;
processing, with the batch configuration file, a second communication of the plurality of communications to determine that the second communication is received from a second source and to determine a second time stamp for the second communication that corresponds to the predetermined time period; without altering information in the second communication,
generating a second metadata tag based on the second source and the second time stamp;
directing the first communication to a first micro-batch for processing within the predetermined time period based on the first source and the first time stamp in the first metadata tag, wherein the first micro-batch is processed using a first validation and enrichment protocol and a first micro-batch configuration file;
and directing the second communication to a second micro-batch for processing within the predetermined time period based on the second source and the second time stamp in the second metadata tag, wherein the second micro-batch is processed using a second validation and enrichment protocol and a second micro-batch configuration file.
1. A system for parallel processing of batch communications during data validation using a plurality of independent processing streams, the system comprising:
one or more processors; and a non-transitory, computer readable medium comprising instructions when executed by one or more processors causes operations comprising:
processing, with a batch configuration file, a first communication of a plurality of communications to determine that the first communication is received from a first source and to determine a first time stamp for the first communication that corresponds to a predetermined time period;
without altering information in the first communication, generating a first metadata tag based on the first source;
processing, with the batch configuration file, a second communication of the plurality of communications to determine that the second communication is received from a second source and to determine a second time stamp for the second communication that corresponds to the predetermined time period; without altering information in the second communication, generating a second metadata tag based on the second source;
directing the first communication to a first micro-batch for processing within the predetermined time period based on the first source in the first metadata tag;
and directing the second communication to a second micro-batch for processing within the predetermined time period based on the second source in the second metadata tag.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to omit wherein the first micro-batch is processed using a first validation and enrichment protocol and a first micro-batch configuration file and wherein the second micro-batch is processed using a second validation and enrichment protocol and a second micro-batch configuration file from the claimed invention of the present application in order to broaden the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,870697. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both claim the same method and systems for parallel processing of batch communications during data validation using a plurality of independent processing streams.
U.S. Patent No. 11870697
U.S. Application No. 19/245149
1. A method for parallel processing of batch communications during data validation using a plurality of independent processing streams, the method comprising: receiving a plurality of communications for batch processing during a predetermined time period;
processing, with a batch configuration file, a first alphanumeric data string of a first communication of the plurality of communications, wherein the batch configuration file:
determines that the first communication is received from a first source; determines a first time stamp for the first communication that corresponds to the predetermined time period;
and generates a first metadata tag for the first communication, wherein the first metadata tag indicates that the first communication corresponds to the first source and the first time stamp;
processing, with the batch configuration file, a second alphanumeric data string of a second communication of the plurality of communications, wherein the batch configuration file: determines that the second communication is received from a second source; determines a second time stamp for the second communication that corresponds to the predetermined time period;
and generates a second metadata tag for the second communication, wherein the second metadata tag indicates that the second communication corresponds to the second source and the second time stamp; directing the first communication to a first micro-batch for processing within the predetermined time period based on the first metadata tag, wherein the first micro-batch is processed using a first validation and enrichment protocol and a first micro-batch configuration file, wherein the first validation and enrichment protocol and the first micro-batch configuration file are specific to the first source;
and directing the second communication to a second micro-batch for processing within the predetermined time period based on the second metadata tag, wherein the second micro-batch is processed using a second validation and enrichment protocol and a second micro-batch configuration file, wherein the second validation and enrichment protocol and the second micro-batch configuration file are specific to the second source.
1. A system for parallel processing of batch communications during data validation using a plurality of independent processing streams,
the system comprising: one or more processors; and a non-transitory, computer readable medium comprising instructions when executed by one or more processors causes operations comprising:
processing, with a batch configuration file, a first communication of a plurality of communications to determine that the first communication is received from a first source and
to determine a first time stamp for the first communication that corresponds to a predetermined time period;
without altering information in the first communication,
generating a first metadata tag based on the first source;
processing, with the batch configuration file, a second communication of the plurality of communications to determine that the second communication is received from a second source and to determine a second time stamp for the second communication that corresponds to the predetermined time period;
without altering information in the second communication,
generating a second metadata tag based on the second source;
directing the first communication to a first micro-batch for processing within the predetermined time period based on the first source in the first metadata tag;
and directing the second communication to a second micro-batch for processing within the predetermined time period based on the second source in the second metadata tag.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to omit wherein the first micro-batch is processed using a first validation and enrichment protocol and a first micro-batch configuration file, wherein the first validation and enrichment protocol and the first micro-batch configuration file are specific to the first source and wherein the second micro-batch is processed using a second validation and enrichment protocol and a second micro-batch configuration file, wherein the second validation and enrichment protocol and the second micro-batch configuration file are specific to the second source. from the claimed invention of the present application in order to broaden the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,558300. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both claim the same method and systems for parallel processing of batch communications during data validation using a plurality of independent processing streams.
U.S. Patent No. 11,558300
U.S. Patent Application No. 19/245149
1. A method for parallel processing of batch communications during data validation using a plurality of independent processing streams, the method comprising: receiving a plurality of communications for batch processing during a predetermined time period;
processing, with a batch configuration file, a first alphanumeric data string of a first communication of the plurality of communications, wherein the batch configuration file: determines that the first communication is received from a first source; determines a first time stamp for the first communication that corresponds to the predetermined time period;
and generates a first metadata tag for the first communication, wherein the first metadata tag indicates that the first communication corresponds to the first source and the first time stamp; processing, with the batch configuration file, a second alphanumeric data string of a second communication of the plurality of communications, wherein the batch configuration file: determines that the second communication is received from a second source; determines a second time stamp for the second communication that corresponds to the predetermined time period; and generates a second metadata tag for the second communication, wherein the second metadata tag indicates that the second communication corresponds to the second source and the second time stamp;
directing the first communication to a first micro-batch for processing within the predetermined time period based on the first metadata tag, wherein the first micro-batch is processed using a first validation and enrichment protocol and a first micro-batch configuration file, wherein the first validation and enrichment protocol and the first micro-batch configuration file are specific to the first source;
and directing the second communication to a second micro-batch for processing within the predetermined time period based on the second metadata tag, wherein the second micro-batch is processed using a second validation and enrichment protocol and a second micro-batch configuration file, wherein the second validation and enrichment protocol and the second micro-batch configuration file are specific to the second source.
1. A system for parallel processing of batch communications during data validation using a plurality of independent processing streams, the system comprising: one or more processors; and a non-transitory, computer readable medium comprising instructions when executed by one or more processors causes operations comprising
:processing, with a batch configuration file, a first communication of a plurality of communications to determine that the first communication is received from a first source and to determine a first time stamp for the first communication that corresponds to a predetermined time period;
without altering information in the first communication,
generating a first metadata tag based on the first source; processing, with the batch configuration file, a second communication of the plurality of communications to determine that the second communication is received from a second source and to determine a second time stamp for the second communication that corresponds to the predetermined time period; without altering information in the second communication, generating a second metadata tag based on the second source;
directing the first communication to a first micro-batch for processing within the predetermined time period based on the first source in the first metadata tag;
and directing the second communication to a second micro-batch for processing within the predetermined time period based on the second source in the second metadata tag.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to omit wherein the first micro-batch is processed using a first validation and enrichment protocol and a first micro-batch configuration file, wherein the first validation and enrichment protocol and the first micro-batch configuration file are specific to the first source and wherein the second micro-batch is processed using a second validation and enrichment protocol and a second micro-batch configuration file, wherein the second validation and enrichment protocol and the second micro-batch configuration file are specific to the second source from the claimed invention of the present application in order to broaden the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10-12, 14-15, 17-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2020/0012647 to Johnson III et al.
a. As per claim 1, Johnson III et al teaches a system for parallel processing of batch communications during data validation using a plurality of independent processing streams, the system comprising: one or more processors; and a non-transitory, computer readable medium comprising instructions when executed by one or more processors causes operations comprising: processing, with a batch configuration file, a first communication of a plurality of communications to determine that the first communication is received from a first source and to determine a first time stamp for the first communication that corresponds to a predetermined time period (See paragraph [0101]);
without altering information in the first communication, generating a first metadata tag based on the first source; processing, with the batch configuration file (See paragraph [0088], event schema), a second communication of the plurality of communications to determine that the second communication is received from a second source and to determine a second time stamp for the second communication that corresponds to the predetermined time period (See paragraph [00101, 0123-0124]);without altering information in the second communication, generating a second metadata tag based on the second source; directing the first communication to a first micro-batch for processing within the predetermined time period based on the first source in the first metadata tag (See paragraph [0124], Each micro-batch 221 contains a set of events of a particular event type (events that conform to the same event schema) organized according to a structured format that reflects the event schema for the event type. Storing the events from the event collection to a micro-batch 221 may include creating tables or columns in a database or otherwise configuring a micro-batch data storage structure to have the structured format. For example, partitioner 220 may use the schema declared or discovered for the event type to create a table for storing a micro-batch of events of the event type, where the table has columns that correspond to schema fields for the event type. Partitioner 220 may also add system or housekeeping fields, such as micro-batch time and micro-batch id(; and directing the second communication to a second micro-batch for processing within the predetermined time period based on the second source in the second metadata tag (See paragraph [0101], pipeline 112 may be configured to handle events from disparate data sources).
b. As per claim 2, Johnson III et al teaches a method for parallel processing of batch communications during data validation using a plurality of independent processing streams, the method comprising: processing, with a batch configuration file, a first communication of a plurality of communications to determine that the first communication is received from a first source and to determine a first time stamp for the first communication that corresponds to a predetermined time period; without altering information in the first communication, generating a first metadata tag based on the first source (See paragraph [0105, 0124], The micro-batch data storage structure also includes columns for storing type-specific metadata. The column names may preserve event metadata nesting and scoping as described by the schema); processing, with the batch configuration file, a second communication of the plurality of communications to determine that the second communication is received from a second source and to determine a second time stamp for the second communication that corresponds to the predetermined time period; without altering information in the first communication, generating a second metadata tag based on the second source (See paragraph [0101, 0123-0124]); directing the first communication to a first micro-batch for processing within the predetermined time period based on the first source in the first metadata tag (See paragraph [0124], Each micro-batch 221 contains a set of events of a particular event type (events that conform to the same event schema) organized according to a structured format that reflects the event schema for the event type. Storing the events from the event collection to a micro-batch 221 may include creating tables or columns in a database or otherwise configuring a micro-batch data storage structure to have the structured format. For example, partitioner 220 may use the schema declared or discovered for the event type to create a table for storing a micro-batch of events of the event type, where the table has columns that correspond to schema fields for the event type. Partitioner 220 may also add system or housekeeping fields, such as micro-batch time and micro-batch id.); and directing the second communication to a second micro-batch for processing within the predetermined time period based on the second source in the second metadata tag (See paragraph [0101], pipeline 112 may be configured to handle events from disparate data sources). .
c. As per claim 12, Johnson III et al teaches one or more non-transitory, computer readable media comprising instructions when executed by one or more processors causes operations comprising: processing, with a batch configuration file, a first communication of a plurality of communications to determine that the first communication is received from a first source and to determine a first time stamp for the first communication that corresponds to a predetermined time period (See paragraph [0101]); without altering information in the first communication, generating a first metadata tag based on the first source, wherein the first metadata tag is used to direct the first communication to a first micro-batch for processing within the predetermined time period (See paragraph [0105, 0124], The micro-batch data storage structure also includes columns for storing type-specific metadata. The column names may preserve event metadata nesting and scoping as described by the schema); processing, with the batch configuration file, a second communication of the plurality of communications to determine that the second communication is received from a second source and to determine a second time stamp for the second communication that corresponds to the predetermined time period (See paragraph [0124], Each micro-batch 221 contains a set of events of a particular event type (events that conform to the same event schema) organized according to a structured format that reflects the event schema for the event type. Storing the events from the event collection to a micro-batch 221 may include creating tables or columns in a database or otherwise configuring a micro-batch data storage structure to have the structured format. For example, partitioner 220 may use the schema declared or discovered for the event type to create a table for storing a micro-batch of events of the event type, where the table has columns that correspond to schema fields for the event type. Partitioner 220 may also add system or housekeeping fields, such as micro-batch time and micro-batch id.); and without altering information in the first communication, generating a second metadata tag based on the second source, wherein the second metadata tag is used to direct the second communication to a second micro-batch for processing within the predetermined time period (See paragraph [0101], pipeline 112 may be configured to handle events from disparate data sources).
d. As per claims 4 and 14, Johnson III et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Johnson III et al teaches wherein the batch configuration file: parses the first communication for a first tag property corresponding to a communication source to determine that the first communication is received from the first source (See paragraph [0067 and 0072-0073]); parses the first communication for a second tag property corresponding to a batch time stamp to determine the first time stamp for the second communication that corresponds to the predetermined time period (See paragraph [0064-0065]); and processes the first tag property and the second tag property to generate the first metadata tag for the first communication (See paragraph [0065.
e. As per claims 5 and 15, Johnson III et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Johnson III et al teaches determining a number of the plurality of communications received (See paragraph [0063]; comparing the number to a threshold number (See paragraph [0120], ingestor 210 may be configured with an event collection size limit); in response to the number equaling or exceeding the threshold number, determining a current date; and determining the predetermined time period based on the current date (See paragraph [0102, 0119]).
f. As per claims 7 and 17, Johnson III et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Johnson III et al teaches wherein the first source comprises a first merchant, and wherein the second source comprises a second merchant (See paragraph [0067 and 0072]).
g. As per claims 8 and 18, Johnson III et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Johnson III et al teaches wherein the first micro-batch is processed by: retrieving data formatting parameters for the first source (See paragraph [0008 and 0103]); and comparing the first communication for the data formatting parameters (See paragraph [0124-0125]).
h. As per claims 10 and 20, Johnson III et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Johnson III et al teaches wherein the first micro-batch is processed by: determining a user profile for the first source corresponding to the first communication (See paragraph [0067]; retrieving user account data for the user profile (See paragraph [0189]); and determining adjustments to the user account data based on the first communication (See paragraph [0067]).
i. As per claim 11, Johnson III et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Johnson III et al teaches wherein the first micro-batch is processed by: writing user account data to a staging database (See paragraph [0123]); aggregating the user account data to generate a status report (See paragraph [01009]); and copying the status report to live databases for consumption by application programming interfaces (See paragraph [0190]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
6. Claims 3, 6, 9, 13, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2020/0012647 to Johnson III et al in view of U.S. Publication No. 2022/01215948 to Bardot.
a. As per claims 3, 13, Johnson III et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Johnson III et al fails to teach wherein the plurality of communications includes communications from a first merchant at the first source and a second merchant at the second source, wherein each communication of the plurality of communications comprises a respective alphanumeric data string, and wherein each communication of the plurality of communications comprises a respective alphanumeric data string encoded in proprietary formats for the first source or the second source.
Bardot teaches wherein the plurality of communications includes communications from a first merchant at the first source and a second merchant at the second source, wherein each communication of the plurality of communications comprises a respective alphanumeric data string, and wherein each communication of the plurality of communications comprises a respective alphanumeric data string encoded in proprietary formats for the first source or the second source (See paragraph [00250, 0258 and 0466]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Bardot in the claimed invention of Johnson III et al in order to receive input in a nay suitable format.
b. As per claims 6, 16, Johnson III et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Johnson III et al fails to teach wherein the first micro-batch is processed by: parsing the first communication for data errors; and generating an entity query based on the data errors.
Bardot teaches wherein the first micro-batch is processed by: parsing the first communication for data errors; and generating an entity query based on the data errors (See paragraph [0310]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill to incorporate the teaching of Bardot in the claimed invention of Johnson III et al in order to detect and correct errors.
c. As per claims 9 and 19, Johnson III et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Johnson III et al fails to teach wherein the first micro-batch is processed by: parsing the first communication for data errors; and processing the first communication using a first validation and enrichment protocol in response to detecting a data error.
Bardot teaches teach wherein the first micro-batch is processed by: parsing the first communication for data errors; and processing the first communication using a first validation and enrichment protocol in response to detecting a data error (See paragraph [0310]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill to incorporate the teaching of Bardot in the claimed invention of Johnson III et al in order to detect and correct errors.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Publication No. 2007/02343369 to Paramisivam et al teaches Policy Based Message Aggregation Framework.
U.S. Publication No. 2012/0254221 to Lai et al teaches Systems and Methods for Performing Record Actions in a Multi-Tenant Database and Application System.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DJENANE BAYARD whose telephone number is (571)272-3878. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571)272-3964. 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.
/DJENANE M BAYARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights