Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 12/4/2025 (2) are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
4. The drawings have been reviewed and are accepted as being in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
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.
6. Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 5-8, the phrase "to be" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of he claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Dependent claims 2-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim. Claim 8, recites” a source of truth for the data” the Examiner is unclear of what the “to be a source of truth” against one or more versions, further clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites “A method for…”; the claim recites a series of steps and therefore is a process. Claim 15 recites “A system…” therefore the claim is a machine. Claim 18 recites “A non-transitory computer-readable apparatus …”, determining at least one token record from a first source and at least one token record, therefore the claim is a manufacture.
Step 2A Prong One: Claims 1, 15, and 18 recite the limitations "selecting" and specifically “selecting a computing system from at least the first remote computing system and the second remote computing system based on a monetary cost associated with performing the one or more data processing operations by at least a portion of the plurality of computing systems, availability of computational resources of at least the portion of the plurality of computing systems, availability of memory resources of at least the portion of the plurality of computing systems, or a combination thereof; and causing the selected computing system to access the stored data and perform the one or more data processing operations on the accessed data” These limitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
That is, other than reciting a "processor of a computer", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, “selecting” in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper, grouping and evaluating data, if the token is inexistent then store it.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Step 2A Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements “receiving a request to perform….” And The “receive” based on a selection, this limitation is a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data (MPEP 2106.05(g).
A claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The insignificant extra-solution activities listed above, including “causing the selected computing system to access” this limitation is a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data. The limitations performed by a “selecting” of data ( it is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner. (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). There are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (abstract idea).
Koninklijke KPN N.V. v.Gemalto M2M GmbH, 942 F.3d 1143, 1149 (Fed. Cir.2019) (quoting Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). In the context of software patents (which includes machine learning patents), the step-one inquiry determines “whether the claims focus on ‘the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities . . . or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an abstract idea for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).
As per Claims 2-14 , The claim recites the additional limitations “selecting, based on a comparison…” “selecting based on comparison”, selecting based on …regulatory requirements” “obtaining a modified version”, “causing removal of data” “updating metadata…” “be a source of truth..” “selecting”, everything comprising patient data modification, the additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components, specifically doing comparison of data, from different sources. (See COFFELT V. NVIDIA CORPORATION, The calculations claimed can be done by a human mentally or with a pen and paper.” It further added that “analyzing information by steps people [can] go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more . . . [are] mental processes within the abstract-idea category.
As per Claims 16-17 and 19-20, being the system and non-transitory computer readable media claims corresponding to the system claims 2-14 respectively and rejected under the same reason set forth in connection of the rejections of Claims 2-14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Florissi et al (US 10404787), in view of KING (US 20230259593 A1), hereinafter “Florissi” and “KING” respectively.
As per Claim 1, Florissi discloses:
A method of data processing arbitration within a communications system, comprising: receiving a request to perform, on stored data corresponding to one or more individuals, one or more computational operations using at least one computing system of a plurality of computing systems, the plurality of computing systems comprising a first remote computing system and a second remote computing system; (col. 62, lines 8-14, “local” and “remote” and lines 45-50, second WWH’ becomes the remote for Data Zone 11; Col. 69, lines 1-12, “other types of processing operations for implementing distributed computations in multi-cluster distributed data processing platforms…” and Abstract and claim 15, “receive an input data stream from another one of the nodes at a higher level of the global computation graph, to provide an output data stream as an input data stream to another one of the nodes at a lower level of the global computation graph, and to generate one or more triggers for controlling execution of the local Spark iterative application instance of the given node”) selecting a computing system from at least the first remote computing system and the second remote computing system based on a monetary cost associated with performing the one or more data processing operations by at least a portion of the plurality of computing systems, availability of computational resources of at least the portion of the plurality of computing systems, (col. 62, lines 8-14, “local” and “remote” and lines 45-50, “second WWH” becomes the remote for Data Zone 11; Col. 69, lines 1-12; col. 12, lines 57-65, “A WWH platform in some embodiments leverages one or more frameworks supported by Hadoop YARN, such as MapReduce, Spark, Hive, MPI and numerous others, to support distributed computations while also minimizing data movement, adhering to bandwidth constraints in terms of speed, capacity and cost, and satisfying security policies as well as policies relating to governance, risk management and compliance.” And col. 65, lines 48-62, “characteristics and availability…select a particular cloud IaaS and associated scheduler that best meets the requirements of the computation...”)
availability of memory resources of at least the portion of the plurality of computing systems, or a combination thereof; (Col. 6, lines 4-25, “…local data resources 110, individually denoted as local data resources sets 110-1, 110-2, . . . 110-m, . . . 110-M. The local data resource sets each provide one or more local data resources to the corresponding cluster for analytics processing. Results of the processing performed within a given cluster utilizing one or more locally available data resources accessible to that cluster are illustratively…” and col. 8, lines 52-61, “…local data resources of that cluster, such as, for example, file names and metadata about the files and their content, and references to one or more other clusters in the case of a non-local resource” col. 48, lines 56-67 and Col. 64, lines 1-24, “…respective portions of the distributed computations by processing data local to their respective…”) and causing the selected computing system to access the stored data and perform the one or more data processing operations on the accessed data. (Col. 6, lines 4-25, “et of local data resources 110, individually denoted as local data resources sets 110-1, 110-2, . . . 110-m, . . . 110-M. The local data resource sets each provide one or more local data resources to the corresponding cluster for analytics processing. Results of the processing performed within a given cluster utilizing one or more locally available data resources accessible to that cluster are illustratively” and col. 45, lines 5-20, “…the binding is illustratively based on a set of properties that can include a combination of time-stamps, indexes, calculation of total stream computation cycle, coupled with continuous data analytics to adjust the time intervals associated with result batches and data batches. The continuous data analytics are configured to provide the distributed streaming computation framework with an ability to learn in order to dynamically adjust the properties used for data stream synchronization and to increase the accuracy of the synchronization over time.” And see also col. 12, lines 57-65).
Florissi discloses numerous additional computational frameworks and its operations, accessible according to zones, however do not specifically discloses the: access the stored data and perform
KING discloses the above mentioned limitations as follows: (Par [0052], “be authenticated for access to data or resources made available by the service provider system” and par [0122], “…In this example, the table 60 includes five fields providing personal details of patients in a medical facility…” and par [0143], “…parameters of files (e.g. date modified, file type) that characterize folders and/or files which the user has permission to access. In addition, or alternatively, the permission indication may indicate one or more folders and/or files which the user is not permitted to access.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of KING specifically medicated or updated file into the method of Florissi to provide the user with the latest file in a communication session. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would implement providing the latest medical information according to permission and according to a specific patient for further procedures, KING (Par [0121]).
As per Claim 2, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated and KING further discloses: wherein: the selecting of the computing system is further based on a comparison of one or more features of the first remote computing system and one or more features of the second remote computing system; (col. 12, lines 57-65, “A WWH platform in some embodiments leverages one or more frameworks supported by Hadoop YARN, such as MapReduce, Spark, Hive, MPI and numerous others, to support distributed computations while also minimizing data movement, adhering to bandwidth constraints in terms of speed, capacity and cost, and satisfying security policies as well as policies relating to governance, risk management and compliance.”) the one or more features of the first remote computing system comprise a first monetary cost, a first computational resource availability, a first memory resource availability of the first computing system, or a combination thereof; (col. 12, lines 57-65, “A WWH platform in some embodiments leverages one or more frameworks supported by Hadoop YARN, such as MapReduce, Spark, Hive, MPI and numerous others, to support distributed computations while also minimizing data movement, adhering to bandwidth constraints in terms of speed, capacity and cost, and satisfying security policies as well as policies relating to governance, risk management and compliance.”) and the one or more features of the second remote computing system comprise a second monetary cost, a second computational resource availability, a second memory resource availability of the second computing system, or a combination thereof. (Cols. 11-12, lines 64-37 and 1-17, “WWH platform facilitates enforcement of policies relating to governance, management of risk, and compliance with regulatory requirements, all at the local level.” And col. 64, lines 1-24, “A first one of the data processing clusters is implemented in a first cloud of a first type provided by a first cloud service provider, and at least a second one of the data processing clusters is implemented in a second cloud of a second type different than the first type, provided by a second cloud service provider different than the first cloud service provider. The local processing results of the distributed computations from respective ones of the data processing clusters are combined utilizing a global data structure configured based at least in part on the at least one local data structure in order to produce global processing results of the distributed computations.” And see Figures 18-20).
As per Claim 3, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated and Florissi further discloses: wherein the selecting of the computing system is further based on availability of network resources associated with at least a portion of the plurality of computing systems. (col. 12, lines 57-65, “A WWH platform in some embodiments leverages one or more frameworks supported by Hadoop YARN, such as MapReduce, Spark, Hive, MPI and numerous others, to support distributed computations while also minimizing data movement, adhering to bandwidth constraints in terms of speed, capacity and cost, and satisfying security policies as well as policies relating to governance, risk management and compliance.”).
As per Claim 4, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated and Florissi further discloses: , wherein the selecting of the computing system is further based on the first remote computing system or the second remote computing system meeting one or more regulatory requirements. (Cols. 11-12, lines 64-37 and 1-17, “WWH platform facilitates enforcement of policies relating to governance, management of risk, and compliance with regulatory requirements, all at the local level.” And col. 64, lines 1-24, “A first one of the data processing clusters is implemented in a first cloud of a first type provided by a first cloud service provider, and at least a second one of the data processing clusters is implemented in a second cloud of a second type different than the first type, provided by a second cloud service provider different than the first cloud service provider. The local processing results of the distributed computations from respective ones of the data processing clusters are combined utilizing a global data structure configured based at least in part on the at least one local data structure in order to produce global processing results of the distributed computations.” And see Figures 18-20).
As per Claim 5, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated and Florissi further discloses: further comprising: obtaining, from the selected remote computing system, a modified version of the stored data; and causing the modified version of the stored data to be stored in a temporary data store. (Col. 51, lines 12-18, “….allocating and de-allocating resources, but also losing the entire context of the previous computations that could be leveraged in the next iteration, such as values that have been stored in cache and other variables.”).
Florissi discloses numerous additional computational frameworks, however do not specifically discloses the: “the modified version of the stored data”
KING discloses the above mentioned limitations as follows: (Par [0122], “The permission indication may comprise an indication of one or more conditions which relate to a field or table. FIG. 6 is a diagram of a table 60 showing operation of a permission indication 61 including a condition on a Date field of table 60. In this example, the table 60 includes five fields providing personal details of patients in a medical facility…” and par [0143], “…parameters of files (e.g. date modified, file type) that characterize folders and/or files which the user has permission to access. In addition or alternatively, the permission indication may indicate one or more folders and/or files which the user is not permitted to access.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of KING specifically medicated or updated file into the method of Florissi to provide the user with the latest file in a communication session. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would implement providing the latest medical information according to permission and according to a specific patient for further procedures, KING (Par [0121]).
As per Claim 6, the rejection of Claim 5 is incorporated and Florissi further discloses: further comprising causing the modified version of the stored data to be removed from the temporary data store. (Col. 51, lines 12-18, “….allocating and de-allocating resources, but also losing the entire context of the previous computations that could be leveraged in the next iteration, such as values that have been stored in cache and other variables.”).
Florissi discloses numerous additional computational frameworks, however do not specifically discloses the: “the modified version of the stored data”
KING discloses the above mentioned limitations as follows: (Par [0122], “The permission indication may comprise an indication of one or more conditions which relate to a field or table. FIG. 6 is a diagram of a table 60 showing operation of a permission indication 61 including a condition on a Date field of table 60. In this example, the table 60 includes five fields providing personal details of patients in a medical facility…” and par [0143], “…parameters of files (e.g. date modified, file type) that characterize folders and/or files which the user has permission to access. In addition or alternatively, the permission indication may indicate one or more folders and/or files which the user is not permitted to access.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of KING specifically medicated or updated file into the method of Florissi to provide the user with the latest file in a communication session. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would implement providing the latest medical information according to permission and according to a specific patient for further procedures, KING (Par [0121]).
As per Claim 7, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated and Florissi further discloses: further comprising: obtaining, from the selected remote computing system, a modified version of the stored data; updating metadata associated with the stored data to generate updated metadata associated with the modified version of the stored data; and causing the modified version of the stored data and the updating metadata to be stored in a primary data store accessible to one or more computing systems other than the plurality of computing systems. (Col. 51, lines 12-18, “….allocating and de-allocating resources, but also losing the entire context of the previous computations that could be leveraged in the next iteration, such as values that have been stored in cache and other variables.” And Col. 67, lines 60-65, “WWH catalog can be used to manage metadata relating to
specific details and requirements on the data abstraction used at each data zone as well as the mapping preferences and recommendations for each data abstraction and the best computational framework to be utilized for its analysis…”).
Florissi discloses numerous additional computational frameworks, however do not specifically discloses the: “a modified version of the stored data the modified version of the stored data”
KING discloses the above mentioned limitations as follows: (Par [0122], “The permission indication may comprise an indication of one or more conditions which relate to a field or table. FIG. 6 is a diagram of a table 60 showing operation of a permission indication 61 including a condition on a Date field of table 60. In this example, the table 60 includes five fields providing personal details of patients in a medical facility…” and par [0143], “…parameters of files (e.g. date modified, file type) that characterize folders and/or files which the user has permission to access. In addition or alternatively, the permission indication may indicate one or more folders and/or files which the user is not permitted to access.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of KING specifically medicated or updated file into the method of Florissi to provide the user with the latest file in a communication session. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would implement providing the latest medical information according to permission and according to a specific patient for further procedures, KING (Par [0121]).
As per Claim 8, the rejection of Claim 7 is incorporated and Florissi further discloses: wherein the modified version of the stored data is configured to be a source of truth against one or more versions of the stored data. (col. 42-43, lines 5-67 and 1-6, respectively, “…based on the identifier of the data batches and result batches... Each intermediate node and the root node will then decide, based on the time-stamps, how to synchronize data batches that need to be fused” and col. 67-68, lines 56-67, and 1-6, “…WWH catalog can be used to manage metadata relating to specific details and requirements on the data abstraction used at each data zone as and Col. 68, lines 30-35, “Even if they generate data on standardized formats, there are usually several acceptable data formats or different version of these formats for certain data types”)
As per Claim 10, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated and KING further discloses: wherein the one or more data processing operations comprise a modification to the stored data, a modification to metadata associated with the stored data, or both. (Par [0122], “The permission indication may comprise an indication of one or more conditions which relate to a field or table. FIG. 6 is a diagram of a table 60 showing operation of a permission indication 61 including a condition on a Date field of table 60. In this example, the table 60 includes five fields providing personal details of patients in a medical facility…” and par [0143], “…parameters of files (e.g. date modified, file type) that characterize folders and/or files which the user has permission to access. In addition or alternatively, the permission indication may indicate one or more folders and/or files which the user is not permitted to access.” Which no more access, no more modifications are made).
As per Claim 11, the rejection of Claim 10 is incorporated and Florissi further discloses: wherein the modification to the stored data comprises a change to at least genetics data associated with the one or more individuals. (Col. 35, lines 20-34, “data stream and its associated stream computations can benefit from the advantages of data locality in that the data stream is created and analyzed…” “collecting different kind of information such as temperature…” and Col. 69, lines 33-41, “some data types such as genetic records”).
As per Claim 12, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated and Florissi further discloses: wherein the one or more data processing operations comprise performing an analysis of at least a portion of the stored data, and determining one or more characteristics of the one or more individuals. (Col. 67-68, lines 56-67, and 1-6, “…WWH catalog can be used to manage metadata relating to specific details and requirements on the data abstraction used at each data zone as well as the mapping preferences and recommendations for each data abstraction and the best computational framework to be utilized for its analysis. The metadata managed using the WWH catalog can additionally or alternatively include information such as specific details”)
As per Claim 13, the rejection of Claim 10 is incorporated and Florissi further discloses: wherein the one or more characteristics of the one or more individuals comprise one or more genomic mutations present in nucleic acids derived from samples obtained from the one or more individuals, information about a treatment provided to the one or more individuals in conjunction with a biological condition present in the one or more individuals, or a combination thereof. (Col. 69, lines 33-41, “some data types such as genetic records” and Col. 35, lines 20-34).
KING further discloses (Par [0121-0122], details of patients in a medical facility or “medical condition”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of KING specifically medicated or updated file into the method of Florissi to provide the user with the latest file in a communication session. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would implement providing the latest medical information according to permission and according to a specific patient for further procedures, KING (Par [0121]).
As per Claim 14, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated and Florissi further discloses: wherein the stored data comprises patient data, the patient data comprising genomic information, genetic information, metabolomic information, transcriptomic information, fragmentomic information, immune receptor information, methylation information, epigenomic information, proteomic information, immunohistochemistry (IHC) information, immunofluorescence (IF) information, or a combination thereof; medical information or health information of the one or more individuals, indicative of a presence or an absence of a biological condition within the one or more individuals obtained based on one or more diagnostic tests; or a combination thereof. (Col. 69, lines 33-41, “some data types such as genetic records”).
KING further discloses (Par [0121-0122], details of patients in a medical facility or “medical condition”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of KING specifically medicated or updated file into the method of Florissi to provide the user with the latest file in a communication session. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would implement providing the latest medical information according to permission and according to a specific patient for further procedures, KING (Par [0121]).
As per Claims 15-20, being the system and computer readable storage medium claims corresponding to the method claims 1-2 respectively and rejected under the same reason set forth in connection of the rejections of Claims 1-2 and further Florissi discloses: (col. 69, lines 13-23, “processor-readable storage medium.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
TRAN; RICHARD V. (US-20230032590-A1) relates supply chains solutions, fintech solutions such as business analytics & reporting tools, operational deployments such as real-time analytics tools, application performance management tools.
Gunther; Christian (US-11823089-B2) relates to fields benefit from dramatically reduced operational cost, impairment cost, reconciliation cost, compliance cost, capital cost or any other business restraining effort or economic hindrance.
KARR; RONALD (US-20230350858-A1 ) relates to supply chains solutions, fintech solutions such as business analytics & reporting tools, operational deployments such as real-time analytics tools.
Sangle; Ganesh (US-20230353495-A1) relates to an architecture described in more detail below allows a storage node in the cluster to fail, with the system remaining operational, since the data can be reconstructed from other storage nodes and thus remain available for input and output operations. In various embodiments, a storage node may be referred to as a cluster node, a blade, or a server.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELICA RUIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-3158. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 am to 6:00 pm.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571) 270-5626. 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.
/ANGELICA RUIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154 February 7, 2026