Patent Application 17362729 - DETECTING SCHEMA INCOMPATIBILITIES FOR - Rejection

Patent Application 17362729 - DETECTING SCHEMA INCOMPATIBILITIES FOR

Title: DETECTING SCHEMA INCOMPATIBILITIES FOR GENERATING VIEWS AT TARGET DATA STORES

Application Information

• Invention Title: DETECTING SCHEMA INCOMPATIBILITIES FOR GENERATING VIEWS AT TARGET DATA STORES
• Application Number: 17362729
• Submission Date: 2025-05-22T00:00:00.000Z
• Effective Filing Date: 2021-06-29T00:00:00.000Z
• Filing Date: 2021-06-29T00:00:00.000Z
• National Class: 707
• National Sub-Class: 691000
• Examiner Employee Number: 84165
• Art Unit: 2169
• Tech Center: 2100

Rejection Summary

• 102 Rejections: 0
• 103 Rejections: 2

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

• US 0181543🔗

Office Action Text

    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 .

Remarks
This action is in response to the amendments received on 4/24/25.  Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.  Applicant’s arguments have been carefully and respectfully considered.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2004/0181543), and further in view of Haas et al. (US 7,010,539).

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.  The claim(s) do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. 
Step 2A, Prong One asks: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? See MPEP 2106.04 Part I. If a claim limitation, 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.  See MPEP 2106.04(a).
With respect to claim 1, the limitation of “detecting an incompatibility”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “detect” in the context of this claim encompasses the user observing a difference. 
If a claim limitation, 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2a, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1-4 are directed towards a system comprising a processor and a memory, however, this is recited as a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.  Additionally, the claim recites “receiving… a view definition” and “provide… an indication.”  These elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and provide only insignificant extra solution activity that is mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea.

The claims do 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 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components.  Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.

	With respect to “receiving… a view definition”, the courts have found limitations directed towards data gathering to be well-understood, routine, and conventional.  See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).  Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).
With respect to “provide… an indication”, the courts have found limitations directed towards presenting to be well-understood, routine, and conventional.  See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).  Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.

Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea.  The claim is not patent eligible.

With respect to claim 2, the limitations are directed towards further mental processes.  The limitation of “determine one or more suggested modifications”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “determine” in the context of this claim encompasses the user thinking of a solution. 

With respect to claims 3 and 4, the limitations are directed towards further defining the view definition, which is an element that is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.  

With respect to claims 5-9, limitations present the same issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claims 1-4 and have been discussed above.

With respect to claim 10, the limitations are directed towards storing data and a first data model, the second data model, and of the management system implementing a hub data model. These data models do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea.

With respect to claim 11, the limitations are directed towards further defining the view definition, which is an element that is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.  

With respect to claim 12, the limitations discuss a materialized view management service offered as part of a provider network, however, there are not limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.  

With respect to claim 13, the limitation of “evaluating… The view definition”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “evaluating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user observing a difference. 
If a claim limitation, 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2a, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 13-20 are directed towards a non-transitory, computer readable storage medium and one or more computing devices, however, this is recited as a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.  Additionally, the claim recites “receiving… a view definition” and “executing … the plan.”  These elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and provide only insignificant extra solution activity that is mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea.

The claims do 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 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components.  Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.

	With respect to “receiving… a view definition”, the courts have found limitations directed towards data gathering to be well-understood, routine, and conventional.  See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).  Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).
With respect to “executing … the plan”, the courts have found limitations directed towards invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process as mere instructions to apply an exception.  See MPEP 2106.05(f).  

Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea.  The claim is not patent eligible.

With respect to claim 14, the limitation of “identifying an incompatibility”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user observing a difference. 
 The limitation of “determining a resolution”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “determine” in the context of this claim encompasses the user thinking of a solution.

With respect to claim 15, the claim recites “provide… an indication” and “receiving… the resolution.”  These elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and provide only insignificant extra solution activity that is mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea.
With respect to “provide… an indication”, the courts have found limitations directed towards presenting to be well-understood, routine, and conventional.  See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).  Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
With respect to “receiving… the resolution”, the courts have found limitations directed towards data gathering to be well-understood, routine, and conventional.  See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).  Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).

With respect to claim 16, the limitations are directed towards further mental processes.  The limitation of “determining one or more suggested modifications”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user thinking of a solution.

With respect to claim 17, the limitations are directed towards further defining the view definition, which is an element that is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.

With respect to claim 18, the claim recites “receiving a request” and “automatically creating the mapping view definition.”  These elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and provide only insignificant extra solution activity that is mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea.
With respect to “receiving a request”, the courts have found limitations directed towards data gathering to be well-understood, routine, and conventional.  See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).  Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).
The limitation of “automatically creating the mapping view definition”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “automatically creating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally creating an association.

With respect to claim 19, the limitations are directed towards further mental processes.  The limitation of “determining a resolution”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user thinking of a solution.

With respect to claim 20, the limitations discuss a materialized view management service offered as part of a provider network, however, there are not limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.  



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.

Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2004/0181543), and further in view of Haas et al. (US 7,010,539).

With respect to claim 1, Wu teaches a system, comprising: at least one processor; and a memory, storing program instructions that when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to implement a materialized view management service, the materialized view management service configured to: 
receive, via an interface, a view definition for a materialized view (Wu, pa 0598, In step 1415, the process 1490 detects a user selection of one or more data sources from a list of known data sources.), the view definition specifying data to obtain from one or more source data stores that store the data of the materialized view (Wu, pa 0598, In step 1425, the process 1490 detects a user specification of one or more data components to be included in the data view.) and … a target data store to store the data of the materialized view (Wu, pa 0104, The database 130 can also act as a cache for data obtained from heterogeneous data sources and relevant schemas.); 
detect an incompatibility between a schema for the data specified in the view definition with a type system for the target data store (Wu, pa 0599, In step 1430, the process 1490 operates to detect a user request of the data browsing application 120 to provide a list of recommendations for other data components that may be relevant to the data view being created. According to the one or more specified data components and the semantics of the selected display type, the process 1490 then provides in step 1435 a list of recommendations for one or more unspecified data components of the new data view); and 
provide, via the interface, an indication of the incompatibility of the schema specified in the view definition with the type system for the target data store (Wu, pa 0599, According to the one or more specified data components and the semantics of the selected display type, the process 1490 then provides in step 1435 a list of recommendations for one or more unspecified data components of the new data view).
Wu doesn't expressly discuss the view definition … identifying a target data store to store the data of the materialized view.
Haas teaches the view definition … identifying a target data store to store the data of the materialized view (Haas, Col. 3 Li. 47-50, a data source 12 such as a DBMS with associated database 14 stores data in a source schema, and a data target 16 stores data in a target schema, with the schemas being located in a single database or in respective databases.).
	It would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Wu with the teachings of Haas because it allows product data that is stored in one schema for optimal storage efficiency to be accessed and reformatted into another schema (Haas, Col. 1 Li. 17-20).

With respect to claim 2, Wu in view of Haas teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the materialized view management service is further configured to: determine one or more suggested modifications to the view definition to resolve the incompatibility; and wherein the one or more suggested modifications are provided with the indication of the incompatibility of the data type (Wu, pa 0599, According to the one or more specified data components and the semantics of the selected display type, the process 1490 then provides in step 1435 a list of recommendations for one or more unspecified data components of the new data view).

With respect to claim 3, Wu in view of Haas teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the view definition includes a function mapping an item in the data to a data type in the type system for the target data store and wherein to detect the incompatibility between the schema for the data, specified in the view definition with the type system for the target data store, the materialized view management service is configured to detect a missing data type when evaluating the function specified in the view definition mapping the item to the data type in the type system for the target data store (Wu, pa 0599, According to the one or more specified data components and the semantics of the selected display type, the process 1490 then provides in step 1435 a list of recommendations for one or more unspecified data components of the new data view & pa 0745, Next, in step 3020, the software searches for views 2710 that contain all or a subset of the required data components 2730 … Step 3040, performed by the view ranking processor 2745 ranks the views 2740 according to how well they match the set of required data components 2730. Finally, in step 3050, the processor 2745, presents the ranked views as a list 2750 to the user for selection and indicating the number of required data components that were directly included.).

With respect to claim 4, Wu in view of Haas teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the view definition is a mapping view definition, wherein the mapping view definition identifies a schema for the view specified in a different view definition that identifies a different target data store to store the view (Wu, pa 0627, The central recommending system 2200 generates a list of recommendations that includes all data components that are possibly related to the specified one or more data components. This list contains all data components, which have direct or indirect relationships with the specified data components and is generated without knowledge of the desired display type).

	With respect to claims 5-8, the limitations are essentially the same as claims 1-4, and are rejected for the same reasons.

With respect to claim 9, Wu in view of Haas teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the view definition is specified according to a query language (Wu, pa 0348, each data view is associated with an XQuery expression. XQuery (see http://www.w3.org/XML/Query), or XML Query, is a query language which can be used to express queries across various forms of data).

With respect to claim 10, Wu in view of Haas teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the one or more data stores store data according to a first data model, wherein the target data store stores data according to a second data model, wherein the view management system implements a hub data model, and wherein the first data model and the second data model are respective extensions of the hub data model (Wu, pa 0107, Saved views of data can act like data sources. They are associated with a query and when a user selects to present a view of data, the query is executed).

With respect to claim 11, Wu in view of Haas teaches the method of claim 10, wherein view definition further specifies a different source data store in addition to the one or more source data stores to obtain further data from the different source data store to store in the target data store as part of the view, wherein the further data stored in the different source data store is stored according to a third data model different from the first data model (Wu, pa 0605, To create the bar chart (ie. a new data view), the planning manager can select to create a new data view having the bar chart display type and the default bar chart display template is displayed, as shown in FIG. 15. The planning manager may then examine the data sources that he/she knows about. Perhaps there are just two known data sources, the SalesTargetsDS and a human resource database (HRDB)).

With respect to claim 12, Wu in view of Haas teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the view management system is a materialized view management service offered as part of a provider network that offers a plurality of different data storage services, wherein the target data store is implemented as part of one of the plurality of data storage services different than the one or more source data stores (Wu, Fig. 1, pa 0100 & 0104 & Haas, Fig 1 & 2).

With respect to claim 13, Wu in view of Haas teaches a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium, storing program instructions that when executed on or across one or more computing devices, cause the one or more computing devices to implement 
receiving, by a view management system, a view definition that specifies one or more source data stores (Wu, pa 0598, In step 1415, the process 1490 detects a user selection of one or more data sources from a list of known data sources.) and a target data store (Wu, pa 0104, The database 130 can also act as a cache for data obtained from heterogeneous data sources and relevant schemas.), wherein the view definition is specified according to a query language, and wherein the view management system implements a hub data model that is extensible to include a first data model for the one or more source data stores and a second data model for the target data store; 
evaluating, by the view management system, the view definition according to the hub data model to determine a plan to generate a view according to the view definition (Wu, pa 0599, In step 1430, the process 1490 operates to detect a user request of the data browsing application 120 to provide a list of recommendations for other data components that may be relevant to the data view being created. According to the one or more specified data components and the semantics of the selected display type, the process 1490 then provides in step 1435 a list of recommendations for one or more unspecified data components of the new data view); and 
executing, by the view management system, the plan to generate the view (Wu, pa 0600, The user can then select data components for the unspecified data component slots from this schema view, the selection action being detected by the process 1490 in step 1445. in step 1445 the data of the data view is updated to include the selected data component. the query associated with the data view is also updated.).
	Wu doesn't expressly discuss a view definition that specifies … a target data store.
	Haas teaches a view definition that specifies … a target data store
(Col. 3 Li. 47-50, a data source 12 such as a DBMS with associated database 14 stores data in a source schema, and a data target 16 stores data in a target schema, with the schemas being located in a single database or in respective databases.).

With respect to claim 14, Wu in view of Haas teaches the method of claim 13, wherein evaluating the view definition according to the hub data model to determine the plan to generate the view, comprises: identifying an incompatibility between the one or more source data stores and the target data store; and determining a resolution for the incompatibility (Wu, pa 0599, According to the one or more specified data components and the semantics of the selected display type, the process 1490 then provides in step 1435 a list of recommendations for one or more unspecified data components of the new data view).

With respect to claim 15, Wu in view of Haas teaches the method of claim 14, wherein determining the resolution for the incompatibility comprises: providing, via an interface of the view management system, an indication of the incompatibility (Wu, pa 0599, According to the one or more specified data components and the semantics of the selected display type, the process 1490 then provides in step 1435 a list of recommendations for one or more unspecified data components of the new data view); and receiving, via the interface of the view management system, the resolution for the incompatibility (Wu, pa 0600, The user can then select data components for the unspecified data component slots from this schema view, the selection action being detected by the process 1490 in step 1445.).

With respect to claim 16, Wu in view of Haas teaches the method of claim 15, further comprising: determining one or more suggested modifications to the view definition to resolve the incompatibility; and wherein the one or more suggested modifications are provided with the indication of the incompatibility (Wu, pa 0599, According to the one or more specified data components and the semantics of the selected display type, the process 1490 then provides in step 1435 a list of recommendations for one or more unspecified data components of the new data view).

With respect to claim 17, Wu in view of Haas teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the resolution is a selected one of the one or more suggested modifications (Wu, pa 0600, The user can then select data components for the unspecified data component slots from this schema view, the selection action being detected by the process 1490 in step 1445.).

With respect to claim 18, Wu in view of Haas teaches the method of claim 14, further comprising: receiving a request to create a mapping view definition to a different target data store than the target data store in the view definition (Wu, pa 0600, The user can then select data components for the unspecified data component slots from this schema view, the selection action being detected by the process 1490 in step 1445.); and automatically creating the mapping view definition to the different target data store based on the view definition (Wu, pa 0600, the data of the data view is updated to include the selected data component. the query associated with the data view is also updated.).

With respect to claim 19, Wu in view of Haas teaches the method of claim 18, wherein automatically creating the mapping view definition comprises determining a resolution to an identified incompatibility between the one or more source data stores and the different target data store (Wu, pa 0599, According to the one or more specified data components and the semantics of the selected display type, the process 1490 then provides in step 1435 a list of recommendations for one or more unspecified data components of the new data view & pa 0745, Next, in step 3020, the software searches 
for views 2710 that contain all or a subset of the required data components 2730).

With respect to claim 20, Wu in view of Haas teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the view management system is a materialized view management service offered as part of a provider network that offers a plurality of different data storage services, wherein the target data store is implemented as part of one of the plurality of data storage services different than the one or more source data stores (Wu, Fig. 1, pa 0100 & 0104 & Haas, Fig 1 & 2).

Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 101 
	Applicant argues the applicant’s specification reflects an improvement to the functioning of the computer to provide practical integration under Step 2A prong two. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.  The description of applicant’s invention in the cited paragraphs has been carefully reviewed.  However, Applicant must specifically be able to show improvement in the functionality of the computer itself.  There must also be limitations in the claim that disclose a technological solution to the identified problem.  See 2106.04(d). However, the claim merely uses the computer as a tool to process the information (“… the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools” see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)).		


35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant argues that the cited references fail to teach “detecting an incompatibility between a schema for the data specified in the view definition with the type system for the target data store” because there is no discussion of detecting an incompatibility as claimed. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. 
In the prior art reference Wu, “the data specified in the view definition” is determined to be “the user specified data components” to be included in the new data view because they are chosen to be part of the new data view and selected from the schema view of selected data sources (paragraph 0598).The claims require “the type system for the target data store” which is provided by the Wu reference by the selected display type such as the display template that creates a new data view (paragraph 0597). 
Wu discusses that the user can specify one or more data components to be included in the data view (paragraph 0598). The user can request a list of recommendations for other data components that may be relevant to the data view being created and the process can provide a list of recommendations for one or more unspecified data components of the new data view (paragraph 0599). Therefore, when unspecified data components are discovered after comparing the user specified data components and the new data view, the system has detected an incompatibility between the user specified data and the new data view.

Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY N ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3566. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5:00 pm 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, Sherief Badawi can be reached on 571-272-9782. 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.

/BRITTANY N ALLEN/           Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169