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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the drawing objections are persuasive. The objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the specification objections are not persuasive with respect to the “function of a number of markers” language in the independent claims. The question here is one of basis for the specific terminology used in the claims. Applicant points to paragraphs [0139] and [0143] as providing antecedent basis for the claim terminology, but neither paragraph uses terminology similar to the claimed “function of a number of markers”. See MPEP 608.01(o).
Applicant’s remarks concerning 112(f) are persuasive; the claim interpretation section is not repeated in this Action, and the associated 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 112(a) are not persuasive. Applicant cites various paragraphs of the specification in order to demonstrate possession of the features at issue, culminating in a discussion about paragraph [0143] which Applicant contends describes “a direct functional relationship between units/markers and network connectivity values; i.e., gains results in increases and losses result in decreases.” Notably, however, Applicant does not address the substance of the rejection, which directly explains why paragraph [0143] is insufficient to demonstrate possession.
Applicant goes on to argue that “The written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. §112 does not require identification of a specific function, because persons of ordinary skill in the art will know how to implement various such functions and may fall within the scope of the invention” and “The Examiner's assertion that the written description requirement requires enablement by describing specific computer programming is incorrect as a matter of law.” This argument is unclear because there appears to be no such assertion in the rejection. Instead, the rejection asserts that “Particularly for functional claim limitations (such as the limitations at issue here), the specification must sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function, such as by describing the specific steps or computer programming used to implement the claimed function” (emphasis added). This is consistent with MPEP 2161.01(I), which states in relevant part:
Similarly, original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See MPEP §§ 2163.02 and 2181, subsection IV.
Here, the specification does not even clear the bar of restating the function, much less describing how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For at least these reasons, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 101 have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amended claims are “technical,” “non-human,” and “non-biological,” and that they “enhance computer functionality by measuring and recording network connectivity for more efficient network connection.” The examiner disagrees. Merely being “non-human” or “non-biological” is not sufficient to confer eligibility, because it amounts to mere instruction to apply the abstract idea. Similarly, claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Applicant next argues that “Examiner does not support the statement that management and distribution of respective tasks to a plurality of remote microprocessors to facilitate determination of the network connectivity value(s) is a generic functionality of computers known at the time of the invention” and “the Hill reference refers only to a one-to-one computer interaction in which the calculations are performed locally and not distributed.” However, the claims do not require “management” of respective tasks or any particular technology having to do with distributed computation; rather, the claims merely require “respective tasks associated with the determination” to be distributed. This is true of nearly any networked computer system. For example, Hill teaches distributing tasks such as those specified in or otherwise triggered by software instructions, which are distributed at least by way of downloading or otherwise installing software on the resources of various devices of the system: see Figs. 3-5, [0028]-[0034]; see also Fig. 2 and [0022]-[0027].
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection under 102 are not persuasive, to the extent that they apply to the new grounds of rejection. Applicant argues that “Hill’s disclosure relates strictly to an interaction between an offeror device and an offeree device, and does not involve the distribution of tasks to a plurality of remote microprocessors.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. For example, Hill teaches distributing tasks such as those specified in or otherwise triggered by software instructions, which are distributed at least by way of downloading or otherwise installing software on the resources of various devices of the system: see Figs. 3-5, [0028]-[0034]; see also Fig. 2 and [0022]-[0027].
Applicant next argues that Hill differs from the claimed invention because Hill has to do with “trust”, not “network connectivity” as claimed. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the language of the claims encompasses the functionality of Hill. For example, turning to the instant specification for guidance, paragraph [0019] indicates that “a user connectivity or trust value may represent the degree of trust between a first node and a second node”, paragraph [0114] indicates that “user connectivity values represent, for example, at least partially subjective user trust values”, and paragraph [0143] indicates that “if a node gains (or loses/spends) virtual currency units, one or more of its network connectivity/trust values may increase (or decrease)”. Similarly, Hill describes trust value(s) or related value(s) such as thresholds, etc., determined in connection with a token currency balance or amount: see [0009], [0012]-[0013], [0015], [0028], and [0030].
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the following claimed subject matter: as recited in claims 1 and 11, “a function of a number of markers.” See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the above is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Although each claim nominally falls within at least one of the four eligible categories under step 1 of the 101 analysis, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (which is a judicial exception to the four categories) without significantly more.
First, with respect to prong one of step 2A of the analysis, each of independent claims 1 and 11, is directed to the abstract idea of determining a value in association with a number of “markers” (e.g., cryptocurrency units) and permitting those markers to be distributed to entities (e.g., people, corporations, etc.). Claim 1 will be treated as representative. The idea is recited in the following aspects of claim 1 (and in the corresponding aspects of claim 11):
“ determine, using at least one local microprocessor, at least one network connectivity value associated with a first node of a network of nodes as a function of a number of markers of a virtual marker system associated with the first node, wherein, to facilitate determination of the at least one network connectivity value, respective tasks associated with the determination of the at least one network connectivity value are distributed to a plurality of respective remote microprocessors associated with a plurality of respective nodes of the set of nodes, and wherein the respective tasks are performed by the plurality of respective remote microprocessors”; and
“permit, by manipulation of [a] database, the computer database entity to distribute a plurality of markers of the virtual marker system to a second computer database entity associated with a second node of the set of nodes”.
The idea amounts to a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind or with a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the generic computer components, the claimed process encompasses a human using mental processing resources to think about an indication of value in connection with a quantity of currency units and in connection with the performance of tasks such as the prosecution of patent applications (also performed by processing resources such as mental processing resources), and permitting distribution of the currency units to entities associated with nodes by making a notation in a paper or electronic ledger. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, the claim falls within the “Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, because it encompasses the exchange of a store of value between human entities, which amounts to one or more of a fundamental economic principle or practice, a commercial interaction, or an interaction between people. Note that, as explained in paragraph [0036] of the instant specification, the term “node” encompasses human beings and even concepts, and the term “entity” encompasses legal entities such as companies and corporations. Accordingly, each of the independent claims recites an abstract idea.
Next, with respect to prong two of step 2A, this abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application in each of the independent claims. In particular, besides the abstract idea itself, each claim recites generic computer functionality at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Simply invoking general-purpose computers or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, or claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer, is not enough to transform the claims into a patent-eligible application, and does not provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Moreover, to the extent that the claims require such as gathering and transmitting data over a network, or outputting, storing, or displaying data, these features amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Still further, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
As specific examples, the claims recite the following elements which are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
a “distributed computation network processor,” which amounts to invoking general-purpose computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea;
“processors” and “microprocessors,” which amount to invoking general-purpose computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea;
“present…a second number of markers to an entity…based at least in part on the at least one network connectivity value,” which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity such as presenting information on a monitor or on a piece of paper;
an “electronic” database and “computer” database entities as recited in claims 1 and 11, which amounts to invoking general-purpose computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea; and
In light of the above, the claimed invention clearly does not pertain to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or to any other technology or technical field. Rather than presenting a technological solution to a technological problem, each claim represents merely an abstract idea that is implemented using computers as tools. Therefore, the claims clearly cannot be said to represent a technological improvement. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Because the claims recite an abstract idea but do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, each claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, with respect to step 2B, each of the independent claims does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “components,” “resources,” “electronic” or “computer” databases, “processors” and “microprocessors,” and so on, amount to mere instructions to apply the idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Moreover, as discussed above, to the extent that the claims imply features such as gathering and transmitting data over a network, or outputting, storing, or displaying data, these features amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot amount to significantly more to the abstract idea. Finally, upon reevaluating the elements previously determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity, they cannot be considered unconventional. Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, each of the claims as a whole does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
For the reasons given above, each of independent claims 1 and 11 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and therefore the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are rejected under the same rationale as given above. Each of these claims include further details of the abstract idea, making it more specific, but no less abstract. Any additionally recited limitations which are not directed to the abstract idea itself do not include limitations which amount to a practical application of, or significantly more than, the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Rejections under 35 USC 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. For example, independent claim 1 recites the following limitation:
a distributed computation network processor for operation on a virtual marker system, the processor configured to: determine, using at least one local microprocessor, at least one network connectivity value associated with a first node of a network of nodes as a function of a number of markers of a virtual marker system associated with the first node, wherein, to facilitate determination of the at least one network connectivity value, respective tasks associated with the determination of the at least one network connectivity value are distributed to a plurality of respective remote microprocessors associated with a plurality of respective nodes of the set of nodes, and wherein the respective tasks are performed by the plurality of respective remote microprocessors…
Independent claim 11 recites a similar limitation:
…determining, by a system comprising a processor, at least one network connectivity value associated with a first node in a network of a plurality of nodes as a function of a number of markers of a virtual marker system associated with the first node, wherein, to facilitate the determining of the at least one network connectivity value, respective tasks associated with the determining of the at least one network connectivity value are distributed to a plurality of respective remote microprocessors associated with respective nodes of the plurality of nodes, and wherein the respective tasks are performed by the respective remote microprocessors…
It is not clear what in the present disclosure is intended to serve as written description support for this limitation. The closest the specification comes to describing the claimed feature appears to be the following paragraph, which mentions some concepts that may relate tangentially to the claimed feature:
[0143] For example, a node with a large composite network connectivity value may be provided with or accumulate virtual currency units at a greater rate than a node with a small composite network connectivity value. As another example, a node with larger incoming network connectivity/trust values may be provided with or accumulate virtual currency units at a greater rate than a node with smaller incoming network connectivity/trust values. Optionally, the rates at which virtual currency is provided/accumulated may also vary based on outgoing network connectivity/trust values. In some embodiments, the amount of virtual currency accumulated or currently possessed by a node may be directly associated to its current network connectivity/trust values. For example, if a node gains (or loses/spends) virtual currency units, one or more of its network connectivity/trust values may increase (or decrease). In some embodiments, the network connectivity/trust values of a node may be able to increase as a result of gaining virtual currency units, but may not be able to decrease as a result of losing or spending virtual currency units. Similarly, in other embodiments, the network connectivity/trust values of a node may be able to decrease as a result of losing/spending virtual currency units, but may not be able to increase as a result of gaining virtual currency units.
However, this paragraph appears not to describe determining a connectivity value at all, much less in the specific manner claimed, nor does it mention such a determination being performed by a system, by processors, or by using processing resources. Given that the term “node” encompasses human beings and even concepts or animals (see, e.g., paragraph [0036]), it is far from certain that this paragraph describes any sort of electronic, mechanical, or otherwise technological process at all. The paragraph mentions that the connectivity value may vary and that this has something to do with gaining or losing virtual currency units, but describes nothing that requires or implies the involvement of any technology in particular.
It is not even clear that this paragraph describes a “function” as claimed, at least not in the mathematical sense of the word, as the paragraph appears to only speculate about what could happen to the network connectivity value as a node gains or loses currency. Read plainly, the paragraph offers only a suggestion that as a node gains or loses currency, its network connectivity might increase or decrease. The paragraph describes that the connectivity value might increase upon gain of currency but not decrease upon loss of currency, or it might decrease upon loss of currency but not increase upon gain of currency. It is difficult to see how this could amount to “a mathematical correspondence that assigns exactly one element of one set to each element of the same or another set.”1
Moreover, even if it could somehow be demonstrated that the specification in some way implies the desirability of the claimed feature, this is not sufficient to demonstrate possession of the claimed invention. The description requirement of the patent statute requires a description of an invention, not an indication of a result that one might achieve if one made that invention. Particularly for functional claim limitations (such as the limitations at issue here), the specification must sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function, such as by describing the specific steps or computer programming used to implement the claimed function. See MPEP 2161, 2161.01, and 2163. Given the paucity of discussion even mentioning the above features, there is plainly no sufficient discussion of how those features are achieved, and therefore the claims fail to comply with the written description requirement for at least this additional reason.
Any claim not specifically addressed above is rejected for inheriting the deficiencies of a parent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill (US Pub. No. 2011/0282794) in view of Kuo (US Pub. No. 2007/0061250).
Regarding claim 1, Hill shows a system comprising:
a distributed computation network processor (the hardware and software distributed across the devices which implement system 100: see Fig. 1) for operation on a virtual marker system (a token currency system: see [0009]-[0010]), the processor configured to:
determine, using at least one local microprocessor, at least one network connectivity value associated with a first node of a network of nodes as a function of a number of markers of a virtual marker system associated with the first node (e.g., trust value(s) or related value(s) such as thresholds, etc., determined in connection with a token currency balance or amount: see [0009], [0012]-[0013], [0015], [0028], and [0030]),
wherein, to facilitate determination of the at least one network connectivity value, respective tasks associated with the determination of the at least one network connectivity value to a plurality of respective remote microprocessors associated with a plurality of respective nodes of the set of nodes (e.g., tasks such as those specified in or otherwise triggered by software instructions, which are distributed at least by way of downloading or otherwise installing software on the resources of various devices of the system: see Figs. 3-5, [0028]-[0034]; see also Fig. 2 and [0022]-[0027]), and
wherein the respective tasks are performed by the plurality of respective remote microprocessors (e.g., where processors on the devices execute or otherwise perform tasks specified in or otherwise triggered by the software instructions: see Fig. 2 and [0022]-[0027]; see also Figs. 3-5 and [0028]-[0034]);
present, by one or more of the plurality of microprocessors altering an electronic database, a second number of markers of the virtual marker system to a computer database entity associated with the first node for use at least within the network, wherein the second number of markers is presented based at least in part on the at least one network connectivity value (e.g., at least a balance, transaction, and/or related amount, presented based on the trust value(s) or related value(s): see [0015], [0017]-[0021]); and
permit, by manipulation of the electronic database, the computer database entity to distribute a plurality of markers of the virtual marker system to a second computer database entity associated with a second node of the set of nodes (e.g., in connection with a transaction: see [0017]-[0021]).
Hill does not explicitly show that the computer entities are computer database entities (for example, Hill does not explicitly describe that user information is stored in a “database”).
Kuo shows markers of a computer database entity and distributing markers to a second computer database entity (e.g., where virtual currency is exchanged between financial units having databases which store transaction information in connection with identity information: see Fig. 1 and [0029]-[0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hill such that the entities are computer database entities in order to more rapidly search and retrieve data having to do with the entities.
Regarding claim 2, the combination shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and further shows wherein a value of a marker of the first virtual marker system is based at least in part on the at least one network connectivity value (e.g., where a marker such as a user’s purchasing power or other attribute of the user varies based on trust level(s) and/or other indicators, where a user’s purchasing power or ability to conduct a transaction is based on trust value(s) and/or related value(s): see Hill, [0011]-[0012], [0014]-[0016], [0020]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and further shows wherein a first value of a first marker of the first virtual marker system is based at least in part on a second value of a second marker of a second virtual marker system that is different from the first virtual marker system (e.g., where a marker such as a user’s purchasing power or other attribute of the user varies based on trust level(s) and/or other indicators, where a user’s purchasing power or ability to conduct a transaction is based on trust value(s) and/or related value(s), such as a number of acquaintances or eBay or Amazon rating: see Hill, [0011]-[0012], [0014]-[0016], [0020]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and further shows wherein the distributed computing network processor is further configured to provide a marker of the first virtual marker system, wherein the marker is issued by the first node, wherein a value of the marker is expressed in units of the first virtual marker system, and wherein the value of the marker is determined based at least in part on the at least one network connectivity value (e.g., where a marker such as a user’s purchasing power or ability or other attribute of the user varies based on trust level(s) and/or other indicators, where a user’s purchasing power or ability to conduct a transaction is based on trust value(s) and/or related value(s): see Hill, [0011]-[0012], [0014]-[0016], [0020]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination shows the limitations of claim 4 as applied above and further shows wherein the distributed computing network processor is further configured to adjust the value of the marker in response to a change in the at least one network connectivity value (e.g., where a marker such as a user’s purchasing power or ability or other attribute of the user varies based on trust level(s) and/or other indicators, where a user’s purchasing power or ability to conduct a transaction is based on trust value(s) and/or related value(s): see Hill, [0011]-[0012], [0014]-[0016], [0020]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and further shows wherein the distributed computing network processor presents the second number of markers of the first virtual marker system, in part, by presenting a quantity of markers of the first virtual marker system to the first node, and wherein the quantity is determined based at least in part on an increase in the at least one network connectivity value (e.g., at least a balance, transaction, and/or related amount, presented based on the trust value(s) or related value(s); see Hill, [0015], [0017]-[0021]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and further shows wherein a value of, or associated with, the at least one network connectivity value is based at least in part on a quantity of markers of the first virtual marker system accumulated by the first node (e.g., a token currency balance or amount or related amount: see Hill, [0009], [0012]-[0013], [0015], [0028], and [0030]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and further shows wherein, the first node may exchange a third number of markers of the virtual marker system with other nodes within the network (e.g., in one or more transactions or currency exchanges or conversions: see Hill, [0016]-[0020]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and further shows wherein markers of the virtual marker system may be linked to markers of a second virtual marker system via one or more exchange rates (see Hill, [0016]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination shows the limitations of claim 9 as applied above and further shows wherein at least one of the one or more exchange rates is a static exchange rate (see Hill, [0016]).
Claims 11-20 correspond to claims 1-10 and are rejected for the reasons given above, mutatis mutandis.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Christopher D. Biagini whose telephone number is (571)272-9743. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays from 9 AM - 5 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, Oscar Louie can be reached at (571) 270-1684. 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.
Christopher D. Biagini
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2445
/Christopher Biagini/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
1 See Merriam-Webster Dictionary. <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/function>
Prosecution Insights