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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 5 is 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation of “a user inputs the additional information request from an exterior” where the claim limitation of “an exterior” is indefinite since it is unclear what the exterior represents. Is it generally mean outside of something? Or relating to exterior of a computer device (i.e. receiving input via keyboard connected to a laptop or desktop computer)? The specification at paragraph 19 recites that “an exterior (a user)” implying that the exterior is an user; however, if that is the case then does the claim recite that a first user inputs additional information request from an user (presumably another user)? As such, the claim limitation is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With regard to claim 1:
Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations which are drawn towards an abstract idea:
generating a combination of the input information item and the need information item or the at least one seed information item, and analyzing a matching degree between the input information item and the need information item or the at least one seed information item (recites mental process step of evaluation/selection of two data items and analyzing them to determine similarity or relevance to each other);
proposing at least one combination of the need information item and the at least one seed information item according to the matching degree (recites mental process step of forming a decision/judgement based on an analysis);
As seen from above, the identified limitations recite concepts associated with an abstract idea and thus the respective claim recites a judicial exception (see 2106.04(a)) and thus requires further analysis as discussed below.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The following limitations have been identified as being additional elements as discussed below.
An information proposal system that provides an information item on a combination of a need information item and at least one seed information item corresponding to the need information item, the information proposal system comprising: at least one processor to execute a program; and at least one memory to store the program which, when it is executed by the processor, performs processes of (recites generic computer hardware elements to apply the judicial exception similar to apply-it limitations, see MPEP 2106.05(f)):
inputting at least one of the need information item or the at least one seed information item as an input information item (recites insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving information, see MPEP 2106.05(g));
and requesting an additional information item that is an information item to be added in association with the input information item when an additional information request is input (recites insignificant extra-solution activity of transmitting information, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
As seen from the above discussion, the identified limitations did not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recite generic computer hardware elements to implement the judicial exception as well as generic functions of receiving and transmitting information and add no meaningful limitation beyond that of the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Below is the analysis of the claims:
An information proposal system that provides an information item on a combination of a need information item and at least one seed information item corresponding to the need information item, the information proposal system comprising: at least one processor to execute a program; and at least one memory to store the program which, when it is executed by the processor, performs processes of (recites generic computer hardware elements to apply the judicial exception similar to apply-it limitations, see MPEP 2106.05(f)):
inputting at least one of the need information item or the at least one seed information item as an input information item (recites well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving information, see MPEP 2106.05(d));
and requesting an additional information item that is an information item to be added in association with the input information item when an additional information request is input (recites well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of transmitting information, see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
As seen from above, the respective claim elements taken individually do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. When taken as a whole (in combination), the claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements recite generic computer hardware elements to implement the judicial exception as well as generic functions of receiving and transmitting information and add no meaningful limitation beyond that of the abstract idea.
With regard to claim 2, this claim recites a display (recites generic computer hardware to implement the abstract idea) to display the at least one combination (recites insignificant extra-solution activity of transmitting information which amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of transmitting information, see MPEP 2106.05(d)),
wherein a similarity between the input information item and the need information item or the at least one seed information item is calculated as the matching degree in the generating and the analyzing process (recites mental process step of evaluation and comparison),
and the display displays the at least one combination comprising a plurality of combinations in descending order of similarities (recites insignificant extra-solution activity of sorting information which amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of sorting information, see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
With regard to claim 3, this claim recites wherein the additional information request is input when an information amount of the input information item before the combination is generated in the generating and the analyzing process is less than or equal to a first threshold (recites mental process step of determining that the input doesn’t have enough information and need more information, similar to the process of a person deciding to ask any follow-up questions after receiving an assignment or task).
With regard to claim 4, this claim recites wherein the additional information request is input when a similarity between the input information item and the need information item or the at least one seed information item in the combination generated in the generating and the analyzing process is less than or equal to a second threshold (recites mental process step of determining that no relevant results were found and thus requesting more information, similar to the process of an employee searching for a product for a customer but not finding what the customer wanted or finding too many slightly related products and deciding to ask any follow-up questions).
With regard to claim 5, wherein a user inputs the additional information request from an exterior (recites field of use limitations describing intended location where the user is interacting with the system, see MPEP 2106.05(h), and adds no meaningful limitation beyond that of the abstract idea).
With regard to claim 6, this claim recites wherein the at least one combination is generated from the need information item and the at least one seed information item comprising a plurality of seed information items (recites field of use limitations describing the intended meaning or quantity of data being used, see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
With regard to claim 7, this claim recites wherein the matching degree is regulated in the generating and the analyzing process, based on an attribute information item of the need information item or the at least one seed information item (recites mental process step of analysis and evaluation).
With regard to claim 8, this claim recites wherein the matching degree is regulated in the generating and the analyzing process, based on positioning of the need information item or the at least one seed information item in a market (recites mental process step of analysis and evaluation).
With regard to claim 9, this claim recites a matching database (recites generic computer hardware to perform generic computer functionality such as storage of data which amounts to apply-it type limitations, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) to record the at least one combination in which a match is made (recites insignificant extra-solution activity of storing information in memory or electronic recordkeeping which amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing information in memory or electronic recordkeeping, see MPEP 2106.05(d)),
wherein when the input information item is the need information item, a need information item similar to the input information item in the at least one combination recorded in the matching database is proposed together in the proposing process, and when the input information item is the at least one seed information item a seed information item similar to the input information item in the at least one combination recorded in the matching database is proposed together in the proposing process (recites field of use limitations describing the particular or intended data that is to be stored in memory, see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
With regard to claim 10, this claim recites wherein when the input information item is the need information item a combination including a need information item similar to the input information item in the at least one combination recorded in the matching database is proposed together in the proposing process, and when the input information item is the at least one seed information item a combination including a seed information item similar to the input information item in the at least one combination recorded in the matching database is proposed together in the proposing process (recites field of use limitations describing the particular or intended data that is to be stored in memory, see MPEP 2106.05(h); additionally this claim recites the recorded in the matching database which recites insignificant extra-solution activity of storing information in memory or electronic recordkeeping which amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing information in memory or electronic recordkeeping, see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
With regard to claim 11, this claim recites a need information database to record the need information item; a seed information database to record the at least one seed information item (recites generic computer hardware, i.e. database, to be used for generic computer functionality, i.e. storing information, recited at a high-level of generality which amounts to apply-it type limitations, see MPEP 2106.05(f); additionally, the record function relates to insignificant extra-solution activity of storing information in memory or electronic recordkeeping which amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing information in memory or electronic recordkeeping, see MPEP 2106.05(d));
and wherein the processes further include a process of reflecting, on at least one of the need information database or the seed information database, an exchange of an information item between a provider of the input information item and a provider of the need information item or the at least one seed information item, the input information item, the need information item, and the at least one seed information item being included in the combination (recites mental process step of reflecting/evaluating information).
With regard to claim 12, this claim is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasons as discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishiwata et al [WO 2023/074457 A1] (from IDS; paragraph numbers from submitted translation) in view of Kapoor et al [US 9,672,281 A1].
With regard to claim 1, Ishiwata teaches an information proposal system that provides an information item on a combination of a need information item and at least one seed information item corresponding to the need information item, the information proposal system comprising: at least one processor to execute a program; and at least one memory to store the program which, when it is executed by the processor, performs processes of (see paragraph [0025]; the system can utilize a computer system that has a processor and memory):
inputting at least one of the need information item or the at least one seed information item as an input information item (see paragraphs [0049]-[0050]; the system can receive respective needs or seeds input);
generating a combination of the input information item and the need information item or the at least one seed information item, and analyzing a matching degree between the input information item and the need information item or the at least one seed information item (see paragraphs [0053]-[0056]; the system can form a combination of the need and seed data and be able to do a comparison to generate a distance or similarity/matching degree between the two);
proposing at least one combination of the need information item and the at least one seed information item according to the matching degree (see paragraphs [0084]-[0085]; the system can propose or output a respective combination based on the distance or degree of matching determined from the analysis).
Ishiwata does not appear to explicitly teach:
requesting an additional information item that is an information item to be added in association with the input information item when an additional information request is input.
Kapoor teaches requesting an additional information item that is an information item to be added in association with the input information item when an additional information request is input (see col 21, line 60 through col 22, line 27; the system is able to determine if more information is required and be able to request for the additional information).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the input receiving process of Ishiwata by including means to analyze and determine if additional input information is required or necessary as taught by Kapoor in order to preemptively determine whether an input is sufficient to conduct a query thus saving processing time and resource usage by not performing a query that would fail and instead requesting additional information so that the query will succeed the first time.
With regard to claim 3, Ishiwata in view of Kapoor teach wherein the additional information request is input when an information amount of the input information item before the combination is generated in the generating and the analyzing process is less than or equal to a first threshold (see Kapoor, col 21, line 60 through col 22, line 27; the system is able to determine if more information is required and be able to request for the additional information).
With regard to claim 5, Ishiwata in view of Kapoor teach wherein a user inputs the additional information request from an exterior (see Kapoor, col 21, line 60 through col 22, line 27; see Ishiwata, paragraph [0030] and Figure 1; the user can provide the input to the system from an exterior position from the system).
With regard to claim 6, Ishiwata in view of Kapoor teach wherein the at least one combination is generated from the need information item and the at least one seed information item comprising a plurality of seed information items (see Ishiwata, paragraphs [0053]-[0056]; see paragraphs [0084]-[0085]; the system can form a combination of the need and seed data and be able to do a comparison to generate a distance or similarity/matching degree between the two where the system can do the analysis comparison for multiple combinations).
With regard to claim 12, this claim is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasons as discussed above.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishiwata et al [WO 2023/074457 A1] (from IDS; paragraph numbers from submitted translation) in view of Kapoor et al [US 9,672,281 A1] in further view of Dutta [US 2013/0275455 A1].
With regard to claim 2, Ishiwata in view of Dutta teach all the claim limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Ishiwata in view of Kapoor teach a display to display the at least one combination (see paragraph [0028] and [0030]; a display to display information),
wherein a similarity between the input information item and the need information item or the at least one seed information item is calculated as the matching degree in the generating and the analyzing process (see Ishiwata, paragraphs [0053]-[0056]; the system can perform calculations to determine the matching degree).
Ishiwata in view of Dutta teach descending order (see Ishiwata, paragraph [0080]) but do not appear to explicitly teach:
the display displays the at least one combination comprising a plurality of combinations in descending order of similarities.
Dutta teaches the display displays the at least one combination comprising a plurality of combinations in descending order of similarities (see paragraph [0014]; the displayed output/results can be in descending order).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the output results process of Ishiwata in view of Kapoor by presenting the results in descending order as taught by Dutta in order to present results in an easy to understand and read manner with the most relevant or highest similarity results presented first so that the user can easily find and evaluate what are determined to be the best results instead of having to review all the results first to determine what the system believes are the most relevant results thus saving the user time and effort when evaluating results.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishiwata et al [WO 2023/074457 A1] (from IDS; paragraph numbers from submitted translation) in view of Kapoor et al [US 9,672,281 A1] in further view of Vogel et al [US 2016/0132568 A1].
With regard to claim 4, Ishiwata in view of Kapoor teach all the claim limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Ishiwata in view of Kapoor do not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein the additional information request is input when a similarity between the input information item and the need information item or the at least one seed information item in the combination generated in the generating and the analyzing process is less than or equal to a second threshold.
Vogel teaches wherein the additional information request is input when a similarity between the input information item and the need information item or the at least one seed information item in the combination generated in the generating and the analyzing process is less than or equal to a second threshold (see paragraph [0059]; the system can determine that the confidence or relevance is less than a threshold and request additional information from the user).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the output results process of Ishiwata in view of Kapoor by being able to evaluate returned results with a threshold as taught by Vogel in order to help improve the confidence of the search system for the user by determining when the results are of low confidence/relevance and be able to proactively get additional input from the user so that the system can utilize that additional information to refine their evaluation to be able to identify the desired results that the user wants versus bringing a list of low relevant or undesired results thus annoying users of the system by responding to their requests with results that the user does not want.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishiwata et al [WO 2023/074457 A1] (from IDS; paragraph numbers from submitted translation) in view of Kapoor et al [US 9,672,281 A1] in further view of Masters [US 2002/0198875 A1].
With regard to claim 7, Ishiwata in view of Kapoor teach all the claim limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Ishiwata in view of Kapoor do not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein the matching degree is regulated in the generating and the analyzing process, based on an attribute information item of the need information item or the at least one seed information item.
Masters teaches wherein the matching degree is regulated in the generating and the analyzing process, based on an attribute information item of the need information item or the at least one seed information item (see paragraph [0017]; the system can regulate the matching degree via weighting attributes based on user preferences).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the output results determination process of Ishiwata in view of Kapoor by being able to prioritize particular attributes over others based on user preferences as taught by Masters in order to allow the system to better cater to various preferences of the diverse users of the system by allowing the system to focus on particular attributes as desired or preferred by some users and other attributes as desired/preferred for other sets of users thus granting the system greater versatility and flexibility when handling user requests instead of a one-size-fits-all approach of either a uniform weighting scheme (treating all attributes evenly) or having some static weighting scheme that may not be relevant to particular users of the system.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishiwata et al [WO 2023/074457 A1] (from IDS; paragraph numbers from submitted translation) in view of Jadhav et al [US 2018/0165740 A1].
With regard to claim 8, Ishiwata in view of Kapoor teach all the claim limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Ishiwata in view of Dutta do not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein the matching degree is regulated in the generating and the analyzing process, based on positioning of the need information item or the at least one seed information item in a market.
Jadhav wherein the matching degree is regulated in the generating and the analyzing process, based on positioning of the need information item or the at least one seed information item in a market (see paragraph [0053]; the system can regulate the results and respective relevance/matching degree based on positioning of the items).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the output results determination process of Ishiwata in view of Kapoor by being able to regulate the number of results provided to the user based on the matching degree/relevance as taught by Jadhav in order to not overburden users with large quantities of potentially relevant results when the system can allow the user to focus on some top amount of results thereby streamlining the result presentation process to the top best/most relevant results instead of all matching results.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishiwata et al [WO 2023/074457 A1] (from IDS; paragraph numbers from submitted translation) in view of Dayal et al [US 2013/0024313 A1] and Yates et al [US 2008/0133305 A1].
With regard to claim 9, Ishiwata in view of Dutta teach all the claim limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Ishiwata in view of Dutta do not appear to explicitly teach:
a matching database to record the at least one combination in which a match is made wherein when the input information item is the need information item,
a need information item similar to the input information item in the at least one combination recorded in the matching database is proposed together in the proposing process,
and when the input information item is the at least one seed information item a seed information item similar to the input information item in the at least one combination recorded in the matching database is proposed together in the proposing process.
Dayal teaches a matching database to record the at least one combination in which a match is made wherein when the input information item is the need information item (see paragraph [0067] and Figure 5; the system can record matches).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the matching system of Ishiwata in view of Kapoor by being able to record respective matches as taught by Dayal in order to utilize knowledge or logs of frequency of activity of the seller as well as buyer behavior to make informed decisions for later listings of results (see Dayal, paragraph [0047]).
Ishiwata in view of Kapoor in further view of Dayal do not appear to explicitly teach:
a need information item similar to the input information item in the at least one combination recorded in the matching database is proposed together in the proposing process,
and when the input information item is the at least one seed information item a seed information item similar to the input information item in the at least one combination recorded in the matching database is proposed together in the proposing process.
Yates teaches a need information item similar to the input information item in the at least one combination recorded in the matching database is proposed together in the proposing process (see paragraphs [0066]-[0067]; similar need item information can be proposed/displayed together to the user when their input is a request/need),
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the matching system of Ishiwata in view of Kapoor in further view of Dayal by finding similar items and presenting them to the user as taught by Yates in order to display matching results but also previously utilized items by users of the system so that the current user can be better informed by being able to see how other similar need items were utilized by users of the system so that the current user can take that into consideration when forming a decision.
Ishiwata in view of Kapoor in further view of Dayal and Yates teach when the input information item is the at least one seed information item a seed information item similar to the input information item in the at least one combination recorded in the matching database is proposed together in the proposing process (see Yates, paragraph [0052]; see Dayal, paragraph [0067] and Figure 5; and see Ishiwata, paragraphs [0084]-[0085]; the system can provide other past or previous information associated with similar seed items to the current user when their input is seed information so that the current user can consider how past similar seed information was handled so that the user can make a more informed decision about their seed information).
With regard to claim 10, Ishiwata in view of Kapoor in further view of Dayal and Yates teach wherein when the input information item is the need information item a combination including a need information item similar to the input information item in the at least one combination recorded in the matching database is proposed together in the proposing process, and when the input information item is the at least one seed information item a combination including a seed information item similar to the input information item in the at least one combination recorded in the matching database is proposed together in the proposing process (see Yates, paragraphs [0052] and [0066]-[0067]; see Dayal, paragraph [0067] and Figure 5; and see Ishiwata, paragraphs [0084]-[0085]; the system can provide other past or previous information associated with similar seed items to the current user when their input is seed information so that the current user can consider how past similar seed information was handled so that the user can make a more informed decision about their seed information)
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishiwata et al [WO 2023/074457 A1] (from IDS; paragraph numbers from submitted translation) in view of Dayal et al [US 2013/0024313 A1].
With regard to claim 11, Ishiwata in view of Dutta teach all the claim limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Ishiwata in view of Dutta do not appear to explicitly teach:
a need information database to record the need information item;
a seed information database to record the at least one seed information item;
and wherein the processes further include a process of reflecting, on at least one of the need information database or the seed information database, an exchange of an information item between a provider of the input information item and a provider of the need information item or the at least one seed information item, the input information item, the need information item, and the at least one seed information item being included in the combination.
Dayal teaches a need information database to record the need information item; a seed information database to record the at least one seed information item (see paragraphs [0045] and [0052]; the system can utilize multiple databases);
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the matching system of Ishiwata in view of Kapoor by being able to store need/buyer information in one database and seller/seed information in a second database by Dayal in order to utilize knowledge or logs of frequency of activity of the seller as well as buyer behavior to make informed decisions for later listings of results (see Dayal, paragraph [0047]).
Ishiwata in view of Kapoor in further view of Dayal teach wherein the processes further include a process of reflecting, on at least one of the need information database or the seed information database, an exchange of an information item between a provider of the input information item and a provider of the need information item or the at least one seed information item, the input information item, the need information item, and the at least one seed information item being included in the combination (see Dayal, paragraph [0042]; the system can analyze information from the respective databases and utilize that knowledge in future actions by the system).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Patterson [US 2014/0297469] teaches at paragraph [0041] a project that allows for tasks and sub-tasks being able to match/find contractors for the project including allowing them to provide bids
Rajaraman [US 2015/0039388 A1] teaches at Figure 10 a marketplace system that can connect/match consumers with vendors where system has consumer profiles (need database) and vendor profiles (seed database).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC S SOMERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3567. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11-8 EST.
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, Ann Lo can be reached at 5712729767. 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.
/MARC S SOMERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159 9/15/2026
Prosecution Insights