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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 11, 13, 14, 18, and 20-36 were previously pending and subject to a non-final rejection dated August 14, 2025. In Response, submitted December 14, 2025, claims 11 and 20 were amended, and claim 25 was withdrawn. Therefore, claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 11, 13, 14, 18, 20-24, and 26-36 are currently pending and subject to the following final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks on Page 13 of the Response regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive in view of the amended claims, and is withdrawn.
Applicant’s remarks on Pages 13-21 of the Response, regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, have been fully considered and are not found persuasive.
On Page 14-16 of the Response, Applicant argues “Noting paragraph 35 of the present office action … Applicant respectfully disagrees again with Examiner that the functional elements of the claimed invention are recited here are simply an abstract idea or an application of an abstract idea utilizing generic components. The Examiner simply wishes to summarize that all the aspects of the present of the claimed invention amount to nothing more than an "abstract idea" while simultaneously acknowledging the invention possesses novelty and non-obviousness under 102 and 103. Applicant wishes to re-address that all the data elements identified as ‘travel itinerary data components’ and ‘travel schedule itinerary elements’ are not merely constructs surrounding travel, but actual data elements that are reviewed and manipulated by the invention … Examiner reduces the steps above to a mere ‘abstract idea’ because of their present association travel itineraries and travel data elements as the subject matter of those elements. This association disregards any active, functional steps that take place within the system to organization, parse, and select those data elements into new useful information and data for a user using the present invention. These steps involve the key functional steps of parsing the selected crowd sourcing of users interacting with the system, generating travel-itinerary data elements based on real-time availability, tabulating matching crowd-sourced travel-itinerary data elements with said real-time availability, and actual trip booking all together based on the processes set forth in the claims.”
Examiner notes, the summarization provided in paragraph 35 of the cited non-final office action is meant merely as a high level summary of the abstract ideas positively recited within the claims, which is recited in its entirety in paragraph 34 of the same Office Action. Additional elements such as the “user interface”, “social interaction platform”, “at least one data store”, “at least one display module”, and “the system” are evaluated in Steps 2A Prong Two and 2B, and not in the context discussed in cited paragraph 35. The remainder of the limitations cited in Pages 14-15 of the Response recite the abstract idea as explicitly reflected in Paragraph 34, and summarized in Paragraph 35 of the previously cited Office Action.
Examiner further notes, indication that the claims are novel and non-obvious over the prior art has no bearing on the claims eligibility over 101. “Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.” See MPEP 2106.05.
Examiner additionally notes, the purposes of Paragraphs 34-35 of the previously cited Office Action is to detail the analysis performed by the Examiner to “evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception” under Step 2A, Prong One in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), and not to evaluate the additional elements at this step. That being noted, paragraph 34 explicitly discloses that certain aspects of the “organization, pars[ing], and select[ing of] those data elements into new useful information and data for a user using the present invention” are determined to be part of the abstract idea and not additional elements. By way of example, insofar as recited within the claim language “parsing the selected crowd sourcing of users interacting …, generating travel-itinerary data elements based on real-time availability, tabulating matching crowd-sourced travel-itinerary data elements with said real-time availability, and actual trip booking all together based on the processes set forth in the claims” are recitations of the abstract idea rather than additional elements which might bring the claims to eligibility over 101.
On Page 16 of the Response, Applicant argues “Applicant again wishes to again direct the Examiner to both the Specification as a whole and the current set of claims as both sufficiently describing the invention to someone of ordinary skill in the art and specifically reciting all the necessary improvements over current technology in a form like those found within Examples 40 and 42 as well as many of the examples cited within MPEP § section 2106.05(a). Regarding example 40, the claimed invention sufficiently presents the functional elements of the claimed invention in such a way that a personal of ordinary skill in the art would be able to replicate the given invention. The descriptions of the interactions between the users, the travel itinerary elements, and the generated travel itineraries are all sufficiently described within the specification indicating their use, contents, and function in relation to the system. All the additional system components are explained within the specification and demonstrated within the figures of the application. The Examiner's interpretation of the components and steps as generic is conclusory and fails to address all of the elements and functional steps cited above.”
Examiner notes, the additional elements receive a certain level of disclosure in the specification, these disclosures and the context in which these additional elements interact and perform the claimed invention are considered in the Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B of the analysis, an example of which is found in Paragraphs 36-40 of the previously cited Office Action. However, in contrast to the additional elements found in certain claims of Examples 40 and 42, the additional elements of the instant claims, when considered both as individual elements and as whole/ordered combinations, fail to amount to more than “apply it” or generally link the abstract idea to a field of use. These findings are supported by the disclosure of these elements in the Applicants’ specification as discussed in Paragraphs 37-38 of the previously cited Office Action. The contrast between the instant claims and the eligible claims found in Examples 40 and 42 are not based on the disclosures found in the specification not being “sufficiently presents the functional elements of the claimed invention in such a way that a personal of ordinary skill in the art would be able to replicate the given invention”, but rather because the additional elements are used generically in the context of the invention to perform the abstract idea as either merely a tool or by generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use, but failing to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to “significantly more”.
On Page 17 of the Response, Applicant argues, “Noting paragraph 36 of the present office action, Application respectfully disagrees with Examiner that all the additional elements cited amount to ‘merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it”’. There is nothing within the specification, claims, or figures that entails the description of functional hardware/software directing a result without concrete functional steps that manipulate data elements and note steps and actions taken by user for those final end results. Examiner makes it a point to identify all elements and steps within the specification and figures but merely dismisses their technical or functional value.
Examiner notes, all elements are not determined to be “apply it”, the elements are determined, in paragraph 36 of the cited Office Action, as amounting to “apply it” or “generally link[ing] the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use”, each element is further analyzed within the category applicable to it in paragraphs 37-38, as well as in combination in paragraph 39 of the same Office Action.
Examiner further notes, there appears to be a disconnect between what the Applicant refers to as “concrete functional steps” and eligible subject matter under 101. While the referenced steps may be labeled as “functional steps”, they do not inherently represent eligible subject matter. “[M]anipulat[ing] data elements and not[ing] steps and actions taken by user for those final end results”, in the instant case, amounts merely to the processing of data. That is, it is a recitation of the abstract idea and not eligible subject matter or helpful in bringing the claims to eligibility.
On Page 17 of the Response, Applicant argues “Again, Applicant respectfully disagrees that these elements amount to insignificant extra-solution activities to an abstract idea and kindly request that Examiner re-assess their position with the evidence presented. Mere, human activity would dictate that people may interact and find common ground on a social media platform and possibly figure out a common schedule for a trip. That alone wholly fails to include any of the functional data elements and interactions steps required for the successful functionality of the present invention. As such Applicant kindly asks that Examiner review the evidence provided and reconsider their current position.”
Examiner notes, that well-understood, routine, and conventional and insignificant extra-solution activity are not relied upon during the analysis of these claims, and therefore this aspect of the argument is moot.
On Pages 17-18 of the Response, Applicant argues “Finally, citing paragraph 38, Examiner's conclusion that because the invention may be operable on general computer components wholly dismisses all off the addressed elements and steps discussed above that indicate that the invention rise above the extra judicial exception. Examiner's particular attention to the reference of general computer components within the specification would lead to the conclusion that any use of general computer components would reduce any invention to an ‘abstract idea’ without the incorporate of specific and purpose-built computer components. This conclusion is not grounded in the current analysis for 35 USC101 and should be reconsidered by the Examiner. Applicant resubmits that claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 11, 13, 18, 20 through 24, and 26 through 36 are eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 as demonstrated by the analysis under the Interim Eligibility Guidance. The arguments below will both recite and re-address the Examiner's previous analysis and represent the points made by the Applicant.”
Examiner notes, that the analysis found in the previously cited Office Action and the detailed rejection found below, follow the current analysis procedures for 101 as detailed in the MPEP, such as MPEP 2106.04(d): “The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application: Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea” (emphasis added), MPEP 2106.05(a)(II): “[e]xamples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include: i. A commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer” (emphasis added), MPEP 2106.05(b)(I): “It is important to note that a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine” (emphasis added), and MPEP 2106.05(f): “simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea … does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more” (emphasis added) and “Other examples where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process include: i. A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer” (emphasis added)
On Page 19 of the Response, Applicant argues “Applicant respectfully disagrees. As presented above, the specification as whole and the claims as amended describe an inventive concept that sufficiently meets the requirements being an improvement over current technology as described with the present state of the art. As shown above, there is sufficient definition of the functional elements of the inventive concept including the various unique data types (itinerary elements, interaction types, and generated itineraries) and key pre and post process steps that change those data types into improved data elements and structures (interaction-based itineraries and schedules namely). As such, the independent claims do not set forth or describe an abstract idea. Instead, the claimed method is necessarily rooted in computer technology to overcome a problem specifically arising in registering interactions between users, parsing the data types associated with those interactions, and generating travel itineraries and securing travel schedules as a result of those user interactions.”
Examiner notes, alleged improvements to “the various unique data types (itinerary elements, interaction types, and generated itineraries) and key pre and post process steps that change those data types into improved data elements and structures (interaction-based itineraries and schedules namely)” insofar as they are claimed, amount to alleged improvements to the processing and provisioning of data (i.e., an improvement to the abstract idea), but does not provide any support for improvement to the technology. It is important to note that an improvement to the abstract idea is not an improvement to the technology (MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)).
Examiner further notes, “registering interactions between users, parsing the data types associated with those interactions, and generating travel itineraries and securing travel schedules as a result of those user interactions” is an abstract problem and not a technical problem. The recitation of additional elements alongside the abstract idea does not inherently mean that the claims are “rooted in computer technology” nor that the problem being overcome is inherently technical in nature.
On Page 20 of the Response, Applicant argues “In addition to the elements found within the system (the display module, the data store, and the one or more hardware processors) the various data types identified as the itinerary elements, interactions, and generated itineraries demonstrate additional functionality past mere application onto a generic computer system. Applicant directs the Examiner to the fact that the system is described to auto- generate additional itinerary elements and generate itineraries in a dynamic and modular fashion based on the interactions between users. These features alone push the inventive concept past that of a simple computer application or organization of human activity. Accordingly, Applicant submits that the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea and does not attempt to tie up an abstract idea such that others cannot practice it.”
Examiner notes, as discussed further in the detailed rejection below, the various data types identified as the itinerary elements, interactions, and generated itineraries are recited as abstract ideas rather than additional elements, and are therefore unhelpful in bringing the claims to eligibility. Rather these are the abstract ideas that the additional elements are used to accomplish. Further “auto-generat[ing] additional itinerary elements and generat[ing] itineraries in a dynamic and modular fashion based on the interactions between users” is also a recitation of the abstract idea (insofar as it is claimed) and unhelpful in bringing the claims to eligibility.
Examiner additionally directs Applicant to the discussions above regarding the findings of certain additional elements as “apply it”.
On Pages 20-21 of the Response, Applicant argues “Again, assuming that the present claims are directed to an ‘abstract idea,’ Applicant resubmits that the claims include additional elements that are beyond the abstract idea. In addition, Applicant resubmits that a generic computer, such as a personal desktop or laptop computer, is not capable of performing the additional elements that are recited in the present claims. Applicant resubmits that the previously stated and described elements above, taken individually or as a combination, result in the claims amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, in part, because the claims recite an inventive concept that is more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and more than a generic computer performing generic computer functions. In addition, the elements apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, utilizing particular components (the itinerary elements, interactions, and the subsequent generated itineraries) and not merely reciting a generic computer performing generic computer functions. Furthermore, the elements add specific limitations other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field and do not append well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Accordingly, for at least the reasons set forth above, Applicant submits that claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 11, 13, 18, 20 through 24, and 26 through 36 are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101 and are sufficient to satisfy the Alice framework established by the Supreme Court. For at least the reasons set forth above, Applicant respectfully requests the Section 101 rejection be withdrawn.”
Examiner notes, the analysis of the additional elements at Step 2B mirrors that of Step 2A, Prong Two, therefore Examiner directs Applicant to the discussions above regarding the additional elements amounting to “apply it” and generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use. These same findings support the claims failing to amount to “significantly more”.
Examiner further notes, Paragraph 183 of the Applicant’s specification explicitly states “The hardware and software components of the computer system of the present disclosure may include and may be included within fixed and portable devices such as desktops, laptops, and/or servers” (emphasis added) directly contradicting the argument made above.
Examiner finally notes, well-understood, routine, and conventional is only one of the tests available for determining if the claims amount to “significantly more” at Step 2B, and is not relied upon in either the detailed rejection below or the previously cited Office Action, therefore this part of the argument is moot. The claims remain ineligible over 101.
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, 3, 4, 8, 11, 13, 14, 18, 20-24, and 26-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 21-24, 26, 31-33 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine); claims 11, 13, 14, 18, 27-30, and 34-36 are directed to a method (i.e., a process); claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 11, 13, 14, 18, 20-24, and 26-36 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claims 1, 11, and 20 substantially recite storing a plurality of itinerary elements, each itinerary element associated with at least one first interaction;
generating a presentation to register user selections of itinerary elements and interactions between users;
associating at least one travel itinerary element from the plurality of itinerary elements with at least one user through the user’s interaction;
registering at least one first interaction between a first user and a second user;
generating at least one travel itinerary as a result of the at least one first interaction and the at least one travel itinerary element associated with the at least one user;
presenting the at least one travel itinerary to at least one user;
registering, the at least one travel itinerary along with a plurality of generated travel itineraries from a plurality of social interactions, with each travel itinerary including at least one itinerary element;
parsing at least one itinerary element within each of the plurality of generated travel itineraries;
tabulating all matching itinerary elements across the plurality of generated travel itineraries;
comparing each of the plurality of generated travel itineraries with at least one minimum threshold;
matching each set of matching itinerary elements to at least one corresponding travel schedule from a plurality of travel schedules based on the popularity of the travel schedule in relation to at least one other travel schedule within the plurality of travel schedules;
securing availability of the at least one corresponding travel schedule as a result of the matching and the at least one minimum threshold; and
presenting the corresponding travel scheduled to at least one user.
The limitations stated above are processes/functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers “certain methods of organizing human activity” (commercial or legal interactions) of generating travel itineraries (Specification, Para. 3). Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1 and 11 as a whole amount to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), and (ii) generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claim recites the additional elements of: (i) a social interaction platform (claims 1, 11, 20), (ii) at least one display module (claim 1, 11, 20) (iii) at least one data store (claim 1, 11, 20), (iv) hardware processors configured by machine-readable instructions (claim 1) / at least one processor (claim 11) / one or more processors (claim 20), (v) a system (claims 1, 11, 20), (vi) a user interface (claims 1, 11, 20).
The additional element of (i) a social interaction platform is recited at a high level of generality (See [0042] of the Applicant’s PG Publication discussing the social interaction platform) such that when viewed as whole/ordered combination, do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. social networks) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional elements of (ii) at least one display module, (iii) at least one data store, (iv) hardware processors configured by machine-readable instructions/ at least one processor/ one or more processors, (v) a system, and (vi) a user interface are recited at a high level of generality (see [0073] of the Applicants PG Publication discussing the at least one display module and the user interface, [0171] discussing the at least one data store, [0097] discussing the hardware processors configured by machine-readable instructions/ at least one processor/ one or more processors, and [0042] discussing the system) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination [See Figures 1a and 1b showing all the additional (i) a social interaction platform, (ii) at least one display module, (iii) at least one data store, (iv) hardware processors configured by machine-readable instructions/ at least one processor/ one or more processors, (v) a system, and (vi) a user interface in combination], do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent), and (ii) generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)); and (ii) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1, 11 and 20 are ineligible.
Dependent Claims 3, 4, 13, 18, and 21-24, 26-36 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For reasons described above with respect to claims 1 and 11 these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 3, 4, 13, 18, and 21-24, 26-36 are also ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Dependent Claim 8 substantially recites “generating a graphical representation of the at least one first interaction between the first and second user, wherein the graphical representation is representing the first interaction between the first and second user; and displaying the graphical representation of the at least one first interaction to at least one user”, which further narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Claim 8 also recites the additional elements of a heat map, which is recited at a high-level of generality (See [0067] of the Applicants PG Publication disclosing heat maps) such that when viewed as whole/ordered combination, the additional element does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional element of a heat map to update the locality data does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claim 8 is ineligible.
Novel and Non-Obvious Over the Prior Art
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 11, 13, 18, 20-24, and 26-36 are novel and non-obvious over the prior art; however, these claims are subject to the above rejections.
The closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2017/0046802 to Zhang et al (hereafter Zhang). Zhang discloses methods and systems for generating travel itineraries through use of user interfaces, registering user selections, registering user interactions, registering travel itineraries, and other social interaction platform data.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2016/0203422 to Demarchi et al (hereafter Demarchi). Demarchi discloses matching sets of itinerary elements to at least one travel schedule which is stored in a database and securing availability of matched elements of the schedule.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2003/0187851 to Fay et al (hereafter Fay). Fay discloses comparing generated travel itineraries to a minimum threshold within a database.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2017/0132535 to Yang et al (hereafter Yang). Yang discloses basing the matching of itinerary elements to at least one travel schedule on the popularity of the travel schedule in relation to other travel schedules stored in a database.
While the closest prior art above teaches the each aspect of the claimed invention individually, the combination of these references are not obvious in such a way that they would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. Specifically, Zhang in view of Demarchi and further in view of Fay and even Further in view of Yang does not explicitly disclose the securing availability a corresponding travel schedule as a result of matching and exceeding a minimum threshold. Therefore, the claims are rendered novel and non-obvious over the prior art.
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 DAVID G GODBOLD whose telephone number is (571)272-5036. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shannon S Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/DAVID G. GODBOLD/ Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628