DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/29/25 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 15, 28 have been amended. Claims 4, 10, 16, 23, 31, and 37 are canceled. Claims 41-43 have been added. Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-15, 17-22, 24-30, 32-36, and 38-43 are pending and have been considered as follows.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 28-30, 32-36, 38-40, and 43 are objected to for minor informalities. Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 33 duplicates the limitation drawn to “receiving a notification from the fulfillment computing device after the request has been fulfilled at the delivery location within the aircraft”. Subsequently, claims 29-30, 32-36, 38-40, and 43 are objected to for their dependency on Claim 28. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Amendment
The previously pending rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and 103 are not withdrawn in response to Applicant's claim amendments.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s arguments drawn to the rejection of the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Examiner respectfully disagrees and reiterates that the claims, even as amended, are not drawn to patent eligible subject matter. Regarding Applicant’s arguments drawn to the pending claims not being directed to an abstract idea, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner reiterates that the claims, even as amended, are drawn to the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity. While Applicant’s argue that the claims are not directed to fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, Examiner respectfully disagrees. In this regard, Examiner submits that the instant invention describes assigning the request for an item to a particular crew member based on at least delivery location and zoning definition, which reads upon the subgroup of a person following a set of instructions. While Applicant’s argue that the invention is directed to the practical application of processing requested items by a server on an aircraft and improvements to a computer system for performing those functions and that the present claims are directed to improvements to the structure and functioning of a computer system that processes data received from passenger devices and sent to fulfillment computing devices associated with multiple crew member IDs, where each of the multiple crew member IDs are associated with one of the service zones, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the server of the instant claims is claimed at a nominal level, in which it is not explicitly claimed as to how the server is used in any novel or significant ways to accomplish the method steps. As per the MPEP (MPEP 2106.05(a)), it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments drawn to the elements of the claims transforming the nature of the pending claims into significantly more than the judicial exception, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner reiterates that the specific unique technical features/advancements of the invention as claimed do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For example, the features of identifying a zoning definition for the aircraft that divides the aircraft seating into a plurality of service zones and assigning the request to a crew member identifier based on the delivery location and the zoning definition for the aircraft are simply drawn to analysing the abstract data to perform a subsequent action and may be construed as concepts that are performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. Additionally, the features of assigning the request to a crew member identifier based in part on delivery location and zoning definition and transmitting the request to a fulfillment computing device associated with the crew member ID are drawn to making decisions regarding the analysed data and may be construed as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions, as described above. Even the newly added limitations drawn to the features of at least determining the one of the service zones of the aircraft based in part on the delivery location and zoning definition and receiving and indication that a crew member ID has accepted the request for fulfillment may be construed as concepts that are performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. The newly added limitation drawn to the feature of assigning the request to the crew member ID may be also construed as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. These features or concepts all may be construed as falling under certain groupings of abstract ideas. Therefore, in view of this interpretation, Examiner submits that the unique features and advancements of Applicant’s inventions are in fact not inextricably tied to computer technology as they do not require a computer nor do they make improvements to the computer technology.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the claim limitations drawn to multiple crew member IDs are associated with one of the service zones, which is analogous to Example 42’s record of patient condition, Examiner respectfully disagrees and does not believe the two are analogous. Example 42 is drawn to a network-based patient management method that collects, converts and consolidates patient information from various physicians and health-care providers into a standardized format, stores it in network-based storage devices, and generates messages notifying health care providers or patients whenever that information is updated. The instant invention does none of those method steps, particularly relating to collecting, converting, and consolidating data into a standardized format, nor generating notification messages when information regarding the patient information is updated. For at least these reasons, these claim limitations, either individually or as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself and do not transform the nature of the claim from the judicial exception into a patent-eligible application. Although the invention teaches of a system and computer-readable medium, there is also no physical transformation or improvement to the technology that would be more than the idea of itself. Furthermore, in the current language, the claim is merely implemented or executed using a processor and therefore does not improve upon the technology or functionality of the computer beyond the abstract idea. In other words, Examiner submits that the inventive concept, i.e. an element or combination of elements that is “sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept (of an abstract idea itself)”, is unable to be determined within the limitations as claimed.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Regarding Applicant's argument that the cited references do not teach of all the limitations as amended, Bond et al. (US 2016/0093135 A1, herein Bond) has been brought in, necessitated by amendment, to illustrate this aspect (see claim 1 rejection below).
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, 5-9, 11-15, 17-22, 24-30, 32-36, and 38-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In view of the two-step test regarding determining subject matter eligibility, Examiner submits that the independent claim(s) 1, 15, and 28 recite(s) a method, a non-transitory machine readable storage medium, and a system for processing requested items on an aircraft. Therefore, the claims as a whole are considered as being in a statutory category under Step 1 of the test.
Regarding Step 2A, prong 1, Examiner submits that the claims recite a judicial exception, specifically that of an abstract idea. The claimed invention is drawn to an abstract idea of processing requested items on an aircraft, by specifically “identifying…a zoning definition for the aircraft that divides aircraft seating into a plurality of service zones…”; “receiving…a request for an item from a client device onboard the aircraft…”; “determining the one of the service zones based in part on the delivery location and zoning definition”; “assigning…the request to the one of the service zones with multiple crew member identifiers (IDs) based in part on the delivery location and the zoning definition for the aircraft”; “transmitting…the request to a fulfillment computing device associated with the crew member ID”; “receiving an indication that a crew member ID associated with a fulfillment computing device…has accepted the request for fulfillment”; “assigning the request to the crew member ID…”; and “receiving a notification from the fulfillment computing device after the request has been fulfilled…”. The limitations of at least “identifying…a zoning definition for the aircraft that divides aircraft seating into a plurality of service zones…”; “receiving…a request for an item from a client device onboard the aircraft…”; “assigning…the request to a crew member identifier (ID) based in part on the delivery location and the zoning definition for the aircraft”, as drafted, are drawn to 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, other than reciting the server, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “at a server” language, “identifying…a zoning definition for the aircraft that divides aircraft seating into a plurality of service zones” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually identifying or drawing out a zoning definition for the aircraft. Similarly, but for the “at a server” language, the limitation of “assigning…the request to a crew member identifier (ID) based in part on the delivery location and the zoning definition for the aircraft” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually assigning the request to a particular crew member. 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 claims recite an abstract idea.
Furthermore, the limitations of at least “identifying…a zoning definition for the aircraft that divides aircraft seating into a plurality of service zones…”; “receiving…a request for an item from a client device onboard the aircraft…”; “assigning…the request to a crew member identifier (ID) based in part on the delivery location and the zoning definition for the aircraft”; and “transmitting…the request to a fulfillment computing device associated with the crew member ID”, as drafted are drawn to a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls within the abstract idea grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (i.e. commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activity or behaviors; business relations; or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). That is, the claims are directed to the concept of for processing requested items on an aircraft. If a claim limitation/invention, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be construed as describing advertising, marketing or sales activity or behaviors, business relations, or the managing of personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. In particular, the steps together are accomplishing for processing requested items on an aircraft, which is related to the managing of personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including at least social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. Regarding claim 15, Examiner submits that while some of the specific claim limitations differ from that of claims 1 and 28, the overarching conclusion that the claim recites a judicial exception, specifically that of an abstract idea still holds true. The additional limitations including at least adding the request to a first-in first-out queue does not preclude the interpretation of the claims to recite a judicial exception, specifically that of an abstract idea, as the limitation as drafted, is drawn to 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, other than reciting the server, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “at a server” language, “adding…the request to a first-in first-out queue…” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually adding the additional received request to a list of requests to be fulfilled. 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. Therefore, this independent claim is also drawn to an abstract idea for the same reasons as noted above.
Regarding Step 2A, prong 2, Examiner submits that the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. For example, Claims 1 and 15 teach of the additional element of a server and Claim 28 includes the additional elements of a server as well as a processor and a memory device. In this regard, Examiner submits that the claimed server, processor, and memory device can be interpreted as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. The server, processor, and memory device in the claims are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of computing or processing) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. To be considered statutory, the claims require an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. In this regard, Examiner submits that there are no such additional elements that improve the functioning of a computer to any other technology or technical field, apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment, apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Regarding claims 2-3, 5-9, 11-14, 17-22, 24-27, 29-30, 32-36, and 38-43, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that constitute statutory matter. The dependent claims are directed to the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims and have been found to either recite additional details that are part of the abstract idea itself (when analyzed under Step 2A Prong One), or include additional details that, when analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, recite additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two) and fail to add significantly more to the abstract idea (Step 2B). For example, claims 2-3, 17, and 29-30 describe further details regarding the request receipt, transmission, and queuing. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claims) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The dependent claims also recite steps that together with the independent claims are accomplishing the overall process of processing requested items on an aircraft, which falls within the abstract idea groupings of Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (i.e. commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activity or behaviors; business relations; or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Accordingly, the dependent claims are drawn to an abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B drawn to determining if the claim recites additional elements amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception, Examiner submits that the claims in fact do not include any recitation of additional elements that would constitute anything significantly more. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements including a server, a processor, and a memory device (claims 1 and 15 teach of the additional element of a server and claim 28 includes the additional elements of a server as well as a processor and a memory device) to perform the steps of the invention. The additional elements in the claimed steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of computing or processing) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions. Therefore, these claim limitations, either individually or as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself and do not transform the nature of the claim from the judicial exception into a patent-eligible application. The claims are not patent eligible.
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) 1-3, 11-15, 17, 25-30, 38-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cloyd et al. (US 2018/0308037 A1, herein Cloyd) in view of Ibrahim et al. (US 2014/0233959 A1, herein Ibrahim), in further view of Bond et al. (US 2016/0093135 A1, herein Bond).
As per claim 1, Cloyd teaches of a method for processing requested items on an aircraft, comprising:
identifying, at a server onboard the aircraft, a zoning definition for the aircraft that divides aircraft seating into a plurality of service zones (pg. 1, [0002] which describes dividing a commercial aircraft interior cabin into numerous sections, such as first class, business class, economy; and pg. 3, [0035-0037] which describes how the interior cabin includes multiple sections or zones, including at least a front section, first class section, a business class section, a front galley station, a business or an expanded economy or coach section, a standard economy or coach section, and an aft section, where a particular section or zone may include any number of columns or seat sections);
receiving, at the server, a request for an item from a client device onboard the aircraft, wherein the request includes a delivery location within one of the service zones of the aircraft (abstract and pg. 1, [0007, 0015] which teaches of passenger interfaces associated with passenger seats within an interior cabin of the vehicle, where the passenger interfaces are configured to output service request signals indicative of service requests from passengers that are input into the passenger interface; and pg. 2, [0030] which describes how passengers may input service requests through a vehicle entertainment system secured to a seat or a handheld smart device; and pg. 3, [0042] which describes how a passenger interface may be associated with each passenger seat within the interior cabin, and each passenger service request input from a passenger interface is associated with a particular seat location; and pg. 3, [0044] which describes how passengers input service requests (for requesting a beverage, food, a pillow, a blanket, etc.) through the passenger interfaces which are output as service request signals, then the task manager receives the service request signals indicative of the service requests and assigns the service requests to the attendants within the interior cabin and outputs the assigned service requests as assigned tasks to the attendant devices);
assigning, at the server, the request based in part on the delivery location and the zoning definition for the aircraft; transmitting, from the server, the request to fulfillment computing devices (abstract and pg. 1, [0007, 0015] which describes assigning tasks to one or more attendants of a vehicle; and pg. 1, [0012] which describes how the attendant devices may include a position sensor that is configured to be tracked by the management control unit, which may assign the tasks to the attendant devices based on the service requests signals and the positions of the attendant devices within the interior cabin; and pg. 3, [0041] which describes the tasks manager that is in communication with a plurality of attendant devices carried by attendants within the interior cabin; and pg. 6, [0067-0068] which describes how the task manager is configured to assign tasks to attendants within the interior cabin of the vehicle based on service requests of passengers that are input into the passenger interfaces and received by the management control unit as service request signals); and
assigning of the request to the crew member ID; and receiving a notification from the fulfillment computing device after the request has been fulfilled at the delivery location within the aircraft (abstract and pg. 1, [0007, 0015] which describes assigning tasks to one or more attendants of a vehicle, where the management control unit receives the service request signals from the passenger interfaces and assigns task to the attendant devices based on the service request signals; and pg. 1, [0012] which describes how the attendant devices may include a position sensor that is configured to be tracked by the management control unit, which may assign the tasks to the attendant devices based on the service requests signals and the positions of the attendant devices within the interior cabin; and pg. 3, [0041] which describes the tasks manager that is in communication with a plurality of attendant devices carried by attendants within the interior cabin; and pg. 3, [0044] which describes how passengers input service requests (for requesting a beverage, food, a pillow, a blanket, etc.) through the passenger interfaces which are output as service request signals, then the task manager receives the service request signals indicative of the service requests and assigns the service requests to the attendants within the interior cabin and outputs the assigned service requests as assigned tasks to the attendant devices; and pg. 6, [0067-0068] which describes how the task manager is configured to assign tasks to attendants within the interior cabin of the vehicle based on service requests of passengers that are input into the passenger interfaces and received by the management control unit as service request signals, where the attendants are able to view the assigned tasks on the displays of the attendant devices, and after the completion of a task the attendant may engage the attendant device to indicate that the task has been completed).
However, Cloyd fails to explicitly teach of identifying a zoning definition based in part on at least one of a number of seating rows on the aircraft, a number of decks on the aircraft, a number of crew members serving the aircraft, a type of aircraft, a number of passengers onboard the aircraft, or a distribution of passengers onboard the aircraft and where requests are transmitted to multiple fulfillment computing devices associated with multiple crew member IDs that are associated with one of the service zones, receiving indication that a crew member ID has accepted the request, and assigning the request to the crew member ID. Ibrahim teaches of passenger services system for an aircraft, specifically including: identifying a zoning definition for the aircraft that divides aircraft seating into a plurality of service zones based in part on at least one of: a number of seating rows on the aircraft, a number of decks on the aircraft, a number of crew members serving the aircraft, a type of aircraft, a number of passengers onboard the aircraft, or a distribution of passengers onboard the aircraft; determining the one of the service zones of the aircraft based in part on the delivery location and zoning definition; and assigning, at the server, the request to the one of the service zones based in part on the delivery location and the zoning definition for the aircraft (pg. 1, [0007] which describes a passenger services system of an aircraft that includes a cabin services system (e.g., a lighting system or an attendant call system; and pg. 3, [0030] which describes how the one or more identifiers may be used to identify a single passenger seat, a group of passenger seats, a zone of an aircraft, or a combination thereof, where an identifier, such as a particular PCU code associated with a group of passenger seats in an aircraft (e.g., a row of passenger seats such as Row 1), may be used to identify the group of passenger seats for purposes of providing cabin services to the group; and pg. 4, [0033] which describes how the control unit may communicatively connected to the cabin services system server via one or more computing systems (e.g., zone units) associated with one or more zones, where the control unit may communicate with the cabin services system server indicating a request for an attendant based on a selection of an attendant call button indicated by the signal, where the request may include an identifier received in the signal that identifies the passenger seat associated with the attendant call button; and pg. 7, [0055-0056] which describes how the passenger seats may be associated with a particular group within the aircraft, such as a group associated with a particular cabin service, a particular cabin services system, a particular PSU, a particular zone or region of the aircraft, or a combination thereof, where the plurality of passenger seats may be associated with at least one PSU, that may include one or more cabin services systems to provide one or more cabin services to one or more of the plurality of passenger seats).
Cloyd teaches of vehicle attendant task management systems and methods. Ibrahim teaches of passenger services system for an aircraft, specifically including the identifying of a zoning definition as claimed. Both references are drawn to managing passenger tasks/requests. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cloyd with the identification of a zoning definition as taught by Ibrahim for the purpose of providing an efficient system to enable a group of passenger seats to control operation of shared cabin services from one or more controls associated with the passenger seats in the group (Ibrahim, pg. 8, [0064]). By doing so, one would reasonably expect the overall appeal of the invention to improve in efficiency by better managing and attending to the requests of the passengers.
However, Cloyd in view of Ibrahim still fails to explicitly teach of where requests are transmitted to multiple fulfillment computing devices associated with multiple crew member IDs that are associated with one of the service zones, receiving indication that a crew member ID has accepted the request, assigning the request to the crew member ID, and receiving notification after the request has been fulfilled. Bond teaches of casino floor service management system and method, including:
assigning, at the server, the request to the one of the service zones with multiple crew member identifiers (IDs); transmitting, from the server, the request to multiple fulfillment computing devices associated with multiple crew member IDs, wherein each of the multiple crew member IDs are associated with the one of the service zones (pg. 2, [0011] which describes the invention to automatically distinguish between service floor events and non-service floor events and automatically generate work items representing the service floor events and aggregate the work items into a dynamically updated backlog, as well as enable casino floor service management system users to interface with the casino floor service management system to personally choose which particular work items from the backlog the casino floor service management system users will resolve; and pg. 2-3, [0022-0023] which describes how the EGMs are configured to monitor for the occurrence of any of a plurality of different floor events and transmit an indication of the occurrence of that particular floor event to the CMS, where floor events include at least a service request from a casino patron or a food or beverage request from a casino patron; and pg. 4, [0037] which describes how the application server stores the newly-created work item in a backlog that includes active work items and certain resolved work items and makes the updated backlog available to the mobile devices, where in some embodiments, the application service actively transmits the updated backlog to the mobile devices); and
receiving an indication that a crew member ID associated with a fulfillment computing device from one of the multiple fulfillment computing devices has accepted the request for fulfillment; assigning of the request to the crew member ID in response to the receiving the indication (pg. 6, [0055] which describes how the mobile device enables a casino floor service management system user to select items that the casino floor service management system user desires to resolve, where once the mobile device receives a selection of a work item that the casino floor service management system user desires to resolve, the mobile device transmits an indication of that selected work item to the application server to enable the application server to update the status of that work item and the backlog); and
receiving a notification from the fulfillment computing device after the request has been fulfilled at the delivery location within the aircraft (pg. 7, [0057] which describes how the mobile device enables the casino floor service management system user to indicate that the work item has been resolved, where then the mobile device transmits an indication that the work item has been resolved to the application server to update the work item).
Cloyd in view of Ibrahim teaches of vehicle attendant task management systems and methods including the identifying of a zoning definition as claimed. Bond teaches of casino floor service management system and method, specifically including the transmission of the request to multiple fulfillment computing devices as claimed. All references are drawn to managing and fulfilling tasks/requests. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cloyd in view of Ibrahim with the transmission of the request to multiple fulfillment computing devices as taught by Bond for the purpose of efficiently resolving service floor events in a timely manner and being flexible and relying on the knowledge and experience of the casino floor service management system users themselves in enabling them to personally choose which particular work items that they will to resolve rather than automatically assigning tasks based on predetermined, inflexible rules (Bond, pg. 2, [0011, 0013]). By doing so, one would reasonably expect the overall appeal of the invention to improve in efficiency by providing the users autonomy to select the work items they are capable of handling.
As per claim 28, it refers to a system for performing the above steps. It recites limitations already addressed by claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected under the same art and rationale. Furthermore, Cloyd et al. (US 2018/0308037 A1, herein Cloyd) discloses the steps are performed by a task management system and method configured to assign tasks to one or more attendants of a vehicle (pg. 1, [0006-0007]).
As per claim 2, Cloyd in view of Ibrahim in further view of Bond discloses all the elements of claim 1, and Cloyd further teaches wherein: the request is received from a first application that executes on the client device; and
the request is transmitted to a second application that executes on the fulfillment computing device,
wherein the first application facilitates placing the request via the client device and the second application facilitates fulfilling the request using the fulfillment computing device (pg. 1, [0012] which describes how the attendant devices may include a position sensor that is configured to be tracked by the management control unit, which may assign the tasks to the attendant devices based on the service requests signals and the positions of the attendant devices within the interior cabin; and pg. 2, [0030] which describes how passengers may input service requests through a vehicle entertainment system secured to a seat or a handheld smart device; and pg. 3, [0044] which describes how passengers input service requests (for requesting a beverage, food, a pillow, a blanket, etc.) through the passenger interfaces which are output as service request signals, then the task manager receives the service request signals indicative of the service requests and assigns the service requests to the attendants within the interior cabin and outputs the assigned service requests as assigned tasks to the attendant devices).
As per claim 17, it refers to the machine readable storage medium of claim 15 used for performing the above steps. It recites limitations already addressed by claim 2 above, and is therefore rejected under the same art and rationale.
As per claim 29, it refers to the system of claim 28 used for performing the above steps. It recites limitations already addressed by claim 2 above, and is therefore rejected under the same art and rationale.
As per claim 3, Cloyd in view of Ibrahim in further view of Bond discloses all the elements of claim 1, and Cloyd further teaches of: adding the request to a first-in first-out (FIFO) queue of requests to be fulfilled; and removing the request from the FIFO queue of requests after the request has been assigned to the crew member ID (pg. 4, [0055] which describes how the task manager outputs task signals to the attendant device and the attendant device receives the task signals, and the device control unit displays the assigned tasks to the attendant via the display that may list the tasks to be performed in order, and after the completion of a particular task, the attendant may engage the display to indicate that the task has been completed; and pg. 6, [0067-0069] which describes how the task manager is configured to assign tasks to attendants within the interior cabin of the vehicle based on service requests of passengers that are input into the passenger interfaces and received by the management control unit as service request signals, where the management control unit analyzes current tasks assigned to the attendants in order to assign the currently received service request signals and may also order and prioritize the master task list (including pending passenger requests) as they are received).
As per claim 15, it refers to a non-transitory machine readable storage medium for performing the above steps. It recites limitations already addressed by claims 1 and 3 above, and is therefore rejected under the same art and rationale. Furthermore, Cloyd et al. (US 2018/0308037 A1, herein Cloyd) discloses the steps are performed on control or processing units that may be implemented as hardware with associated instructions, such as software stored on a tangible and non-transitory computer readable storage medium (pg. 7, [0080]).
As per claim 30, it refers to the system of claim 28 used for performing the above steps. It recites limitations already addressed by claim 3 above, and is therefore rejected under the same art and rationale.
As per claim 11, Cloyd in view of Ibrahim in further view of Bond discloses all the elements of claim 1, and Cloyd further teaches of presenting, at the fulfillment computing device, the request among a plurality of requests assigned to the fulfillment computing device using a first-in first- out (FIFO) queue (pg. 4, [0055] which describes how the task manager outputs task signals to the attendant device and the attendant device receives the task signals, and the device control unit displays the assigned tasks to the attendant via the display that may list the tasks to be performed in order, and after the completion of a particular task, the attendant may engage the display to indicate that the task has been completed; and pg. 6, [0067-0069] which describes how the task manager is configured to assign tasks to attendants within the interior cabin of the vehicle based on service requests of passengers that are input into the passenger interfaces and received by the management control unit as service request signals, where the management control unit analyzes current tasks assigned to the attendants in order to assign the currently received service request signals and may also order and prioritize the master task list (including pending passenger requests) as they are received).
As per claim 12, Cloyd in view of Ibrahim in further view of Bond discloses all the elements of claim 1, and Cloyd further teaches wherein the request indicates a product for a passenger onboard the aircraft, and the delivery location includes a defined seat on the aircraft (abstract and pg. 1, [0007, 0015] which teaches of passenger interfaces associated with passenger seats within an interior cabin of the vehicle, where the passenger interfaces are configured to output service request signals indicative of service requests from passengers that are input into the passenger interface; and pg. 2, [0030] which describes how passengers may input service requests through a vehicle entertainment system secured to a seat or a handheld smart device; and pg. 3, [0042] which describes how a passenger interface may be associated with each passenger seat within the interior cabin, and each passenger service request input from a passenger interface is associated with a particular seat location; and pg. 3, [0044] which describes how passengers input service requests (for requesting a beverage, food, a pillow, a blanket, etc.) through the passenger interfaces which are output as service request signals, then the task manager receives the service request signals indicative of the service requests and assigns the service requests to the attendants within the interior cabin and outputs the assigned service requests as assigned tasks to the attendant devices).
As per claim 25, it refers to the machine readable storage medium of claim 15 used for performing the above steps. It recites limitations already addressed by claim 12 above, and is therefore rejected under the same art and rationale.
As per claim 38, it refers to the system of claim 28 used for performing the above steps. It recites limitations already addressed by claim 12 above, and is therefore rejected under the same art and rationale.
As per claim 13, Cloyd in view of Ibrahim in further view of Bond discloses all the elements of claim 1, and Cloyd further teaches wherein the client device and the fulfillment computing device are mobile devices within the aircraft, and a connection between the server and the client device and the fulfillment computing device are wireless connections that are established via a wireless access point onboard the aircraft (pg. 2, [0030] which describes how passengers may input service requests through at least a vehicle entertainment system secured to a seat or a handheld smart device; and pg. 3, [0041] which describes how the task manager wirelessly communicates with the attendant devices such as through radio frequency signals or WiFi communication; and pg. 5, [0057] which describes the attendant device as a smart watch or a handheld device).
As per claim 26, it refers to the machine readable storage medium of claim 15 used for performing the above steps. It recites limitations already addressed by claim 13 above, and is therefore rejected under the same art and rationale.
As per claim 39, it refers to the system of claim 28 used for performing the above steps. It recites limitations already addressed by claim 13 above, and is therefore rejected under the same art and rationale.
As per claim 14, Cloyd in view of Ibrahim in further view of Bond discloses all the elements of claim 1, and Cloyd further teaches wherein the client device is a seatback system on the aircraft, and a connection between the server and the seatback system is a wired connection (pg. 2, [0030] which describes how passengers may input service requests through a vehicle entertainment system secured to a seat or a handheld smart device; and pg. 3, [0042] which describes how a passenger interface may be associated with each passenger seat within the interior cabin, and each passenger service request input from a passenger interface is associated with a particular seat location).
As per claim 27, it refers to the machine readable storage medium of claim 15 used for performing the above steps. It recites limitations already addressed by claim 14 above, and is therefore rejected under the same art and rationale.
As per claim 40, it refers to the system of claim 28 used for performing the above steps. It recites limitations already addressed by claim 14 above, and is therefore rejected under the same art and rationale.
As per claim 41, Cloyd in view of Ibrahim in further view of Bond discloses all the elements of claim 1, and Ibrahim further teaches of determining the aircraft zoning definition based on one or more of data entry or an automatic zoning process in response to receiving an instruction that the aircraft is to be divided into a specific number of service zones, from at least one of the multiple fulfillment computing devices (pg. 1, [0007] which describes a passenger services system of an aircraft that includes a cabin services system (e.g., a lighting system or an attendant call system; and pg. 3, [0030] which describes how the one or more identifiers may be used to identify a single passenger seat, a group of passenger seats, a zone of an aircraft, or a combination thereof, where an identifier, such as a particular PCU code associated with a group of passenger seats in an aircraft (e.g., a row of passenger seats such as Row 1), may be used to identify the group of passenger seats for purposes of providing cabin services to the group; and pg. 4, [0033] which describes how the control unit may communicatively connected to the cabin services system server via one or more computing systems (e.g., zone units) associated with one or more zones, where the control unit may communicate with the cabin services system server indicating a request for an attendant based on a selection of an attendant call button indicated by the signal, where the request may include an identifier received in the signal that identifies the passenger seat associated with the attendant call button; and pg. 7, [0055-0056] which describes how the passenger seats may be associated with a particular group within the aircraft, such as a group associated with a particular cabin service, a particular cabin services system, a particular PSU, a particular zone or region of the aircraft, or a combination thereof, where the plurality of passenger seats may be associated with at least one PSU, that may include one or more cabin services systems to provide one or more cabin services to one or more of the plurality of passenger seats).
Cloyd teaches of vehicle attendant task management systems and methods. Ibrahim teaches of passenger services system for an aircraft, specifically including the identifying of a zoning definition as claimed. Both references are drawn to managing passenger tasks/requests. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cloyd with the identification of a zoning definition as taught by Ibrahim for the purpose of providing an efficient system to enable a group of passenger seats to control operation of shared cabin services from one or more controls associated with the passenger seats in the group (Ibrahim, pg. 8, [0064]). By doing so, one would reasonably expect the overall appeal of the invention to improve in efficiency by better managing and attending to the requests of the passengers.
As per claim 42, it refers to the machine readable storage medium of claim 15 used for performing the above steps. It recites limitations already addressed by claim 41 above, and is therefore rejected under the same art and rationale.
As per claim 43, it refers to the system of claim 28 used for performing the above steps. It recites limitations already addressed by claim 41 above, and is therefore rejected under the same art and rationale.
Claim(s) 5-7, 18-20, 24 and 32-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cloyd et al. (US 2018/0308037 A1, herein Cloyd) in view of Ibrahim et al. (US 2014/0233959 A1, herein Ibrahim) in further view of Bond et al. (US 2016/0093135 A1, herein Bond) and Heron et al. (US 2014/0280928 A1, herein Heron).
As per claim 5, Cloyd in view of Ibrahim in further view of Bond discloses all the elements of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach of reassigning the request to a second crew member. Heron teaches of in-vehicle services through attendant devices, user-provided devices, and/or an in-vehicle computer system, specifically wherein the fulfillment computing device is a first fulfillment computing device, and further comprising:
reassigning the request to a second crew member ID associated with a second fulfillment computing device by transmitting the request to the second fulfillment computing device (pg. 5, [0059-0060] which describes how the device may receive a selection/order of a snack, meal, or beverage that is initiated by a user using the user interface, where the service module may then provide the selection/order to a first attendant device, and where the first attendant may ask a second attendant operating a second attendant device to prepare and provide the ordered snack, meal, or beverage to the user, where the first attendant device may assign, forward, or otherwise cause the order to be communicated to the second attendant device).
Cloyd in view of Ibrahim in further view of Bond teaches of vehicle attendant task management systems and methods. Heron teaches of in-vehicle services through attendant devices, user-provided devices, and/or an in-vehicle computer system, specifically including the reassigning of the request to a second crew member, as claimed. All references are drawn to the managing of vehicle attendant tasks/services. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cloyd in view of Ibrahim in further view of Bond with the reassigning of the request to a second crew member as taught by Heron for the purpose of allowing attendants to “utilize their attendant devices to work together to provide their passengers a better transit experience” (pg. 5, [0060]). By doing so, one would reasonably expect the overall appeal of the invention to improve in efficiency by allowing multiple attendants to cooperate in providing services to passengers.
As per claim 18, it refers to the machine readable storage medium of claim 15 used for performing the above steps. It recites limitations already addressed by claim 5 above, and is therefore rejected under the same art and rationale.
As per claim 32, it refers to the system of claim 28 used for performing the above steps. It recites limitations already addressed by claim 5 above, and is therefore rejected under the same art and rationale.
As per claim 6, Cloyd in view of Ibrahim in further view of Bond and Heron discloses all the elements of claim 5, and Heron further teaches wherein the reassigning of the request is in response to a request received from the first fulfillment computing device (pg. 5, [0059-0060] which describes how the device may receive a selection/order of a snack, meal, or beverage that is initiated by a user using the user interface, where the service module may then provide the selection/order to a first attendant device, and where the first attendant may ask a second attendant operating a second attendant device to prepare and provide the ordered snack, meal, or beverage to the user, where the first attendant device may assign, forward, or otherwise cause the order to be communicated to the second attendant device).
Cloyd in view of Ibrahim in further view of Bond teaches of vehicle attendant task management systems and methods. Heron teaches of in-vehicle services through attendant devices, user-provided devices, and/or an in-vehicle computer system, specifically including the reassigning of the request to a second crew member, as claimed. All references are drawn to the managing of vehicle attendant tasks/services. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cloyd in view of Ibrahim in further view of Bond with the reassigning of the request to a second crew member as taught by Heron for the purpose of allowing attendants to “utilize their attendant devices to work together to provide their passengers a better transit experience” (pg. 5, [0060]). By doing so, one would reasonably expect the overall appeal of the invention to improve in efficiency by allowing multiple attendants to cooperate in providing services to passengers.
As per claim 19, it refers to the machine readable storage medium of claim 18 used for performing the above steps. It recites limitations already addressed by claim 6 above, and is therefore rejected under the same art and rationale.
As per claim 33, it refers to the system of claim 32 used for performing the above steps. It recites limitations already addressed by claim 6 above, and is therefore rejected under the same art and rationale.
As per claim 7, Cloyd in view of Ibrahim in further view of Bond and Heron discloses all the elements of claim 6, and Heron further teaches wherein the request for reassigning from the first fulfillment computing device identifies the second fulfillment computing device (pg. 5, [0059-0060] which describes how the device may receive a selection/order of a snack, meal, or beverage that is initiated by a user using the user interface, where the service module may then provide the selection/order to a first attendant device, and where the first attendant may ask a second attendant operating a second attendant device to prepare and provide the ordered snack, meal, or beverage to the user, where the first attendant device may assign, forward, or otherwise cause the order to be communicated to the second attendant device).
Cloyd in view of Ibrahim in further view of Bond teaches of vehicle attendant task management systems and methods. Heron teaches of in-vehicle services through attendant devices, user-provided devices, and/or an in-vehicle computer system, specifically including the reassigning of the request to a second crew member, as claimed. All references are drawn to the managing of vehicle attendant tasks/services. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cloyd in view of Ibrahim in further view of Bond with the reassigning of the request to a second crew member as taught by Heron for the purpose of allowing attendants to “utilize their attendant devices to work together to provide their passengers a better transit experience” (pg. 5, [0060]). By doing so, one would reasonably expect the overall appeal of the invention to improve in efficiency by allowing multiple attendants to cooperate in providing services to passengers.
As per claim 20, it refers to the machine readable storage medium of claim 18 used for performing the above steps. It recites limitations already addressed by claim 7 above, and is therefore rejected under the same art and rationale.
As per claim 34, it refers to the system of claim 32 used for performing the above steps. It recites limitations already addressed by claim 7 above, and is therefore rejected under the same art and rationale.
As per claim 24, Cloyd in view of Ibrahim in further view of Bond discloses all the elements of claim 15, but fails to explicitly teach of receiving payment information. Heron teaches of in-vehicle services through attendant devices, user-provided devices, and/or an in-vehicle computer system, specifically including instructions when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the process comprising: receiving payment information for the request from the client device. (pg. 4, [0052] which describes preference information, history information, and status information that are provided to attendant devices to customize the transit experience for passengers, including allowing the attendant to offer non-complimentary service items to passengers that have paid for those types of service items during previous trips).
Cloyd in view of Ibrahim in further view of Bond teaches of vehicle attendant task management systems and methods. Heron teaches of in-vehicle services through attendant devices, user-provided devices, and/or an in-vehicle computer system, specifically including the reassigning of the request to a second crew member, as claimed. All references are drawn to the managing of vehicle attendant tasks/services. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cloyd in view of Ibrahim in further view of Bond with the reassigning of the request to a second crew member as taught by Heron for the purpose of allowing attendants to “utilize their attendant devices to work together to provide their passengers a better transit experience” (pg. 5, [0060]). By doing so, one would reasonably expect the overall appeal of the invention to improve in efficiency by allowing multiple attendants to cooperate in providing services to passengers.
Claim(s) 8-9, 21-22, and 35-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cloyd et al. (US 2018/0308037 A1, herein Cloyd) in view Ibrahim et al. (US 2014/0233959 A1, herein Ibrahim) in further view Bond et al. (US 2016/0093135 A1, herein Bond) and Browne et al. (US 2021/0024215 A1, herein Browne).
As per claim 8, Cloyd in view of Ibrahim in further view of Bond discloses all the elements of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach of maintaining inventory of available onboard items. Browne teaches of vehicle consumer goods systems and methods, specifically including maintaining an inventory of available items onboard the aircraft based in part on requests received at the server from client devices, wherein the inventory is automatically maintained at the server based on the requests; and
sending an indication to the client devices when an item is no longer available to request, as indicated by the inventory of available items onboard the aircraft (pg. 1, [0016] which describes a vehicle consumer goods management system that provides for efficient planning of meal plans to be served on-board a vehicle, where barcodes and/or other tracking techniques may be employed to track food items and to track which items remain in stock; and pg. 2, [0017] which describes how individual meals, drinks, or consumables are scanned or otherwise registered, with each cart having a predetermined location in an order specified by the system or a user, and where one or more sensors may be used to monitor conditions during the trip, to suggest and/or implement changes to the plan or order of cars previously specified; and pg. 5, [0039-0041] which describes how the processing unit is configured to track individual food items removed from the plurality of carts and to update the meal plan based on the removed items, where one or more sensors may be used to identify consumables that have been delivered from the carts to the passengers, where overall quantities are tracked as well as quantities on individual carts, and also where if a given cart is low or out of the given consumable, the processing unit may send an alert to crew members that a given cart is low on the given consumable, so that the cart may be replenished or that passengers may receive the consumable from a different cart, and finally how the display of the system may provide information regarding types of consumables in the meal plan, quantities of consumables, and/or location of consumables, where a display is provided that indicates quantities added or quantities removed (e.g. consumables scanned as they are distributed to passengers), where updates may indicate changes to the meal plan due to quantities of distributed consumables (e.g. displays indicating how many of a given consumable remain, alerts that a given cart is out of a consumable, and/or locations of alternate carts that still have the consumable)).
Cloyd in view of Ibrahim in further view of Bond teaches of vehicle attendant task management systems and methods. Browne teaches of vehicle consumer goods systems and methods, specifically including maintaining an inventory of available items and sending an indication when an item is no longer available, as claimed. All references are drawn to the managing of vehicle attendant tasks/services. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cloyd in view of Ibrahim in further view of Bond with maintaining an inventory of available items and sending an indication when an item is no longer available, as taught by Browne, for the purpose of providing “more accurate planning, reducing food waste, reducing weight/the amount of fuel used, and improving customer satisfaction” (Browne, pg. 2, [0018]). By doing so, one would reasonably expect the overall appeal of the invention to improve in both managing the amount of goods used and required efficiently as well as providing optimal customer service.
As per claim 21, it refers to the machine readable storage medium of claim 15 used for performing the above steps. It recites limitations already addressed by claim 8 above, and is therefore rejected under the same art and rationale.
As per claim 35, it refers to the system of claim 28 used for performing the above steps. It recites limitations already addressed by claim 8 above, and is therefore rejected under the same art and rationale.
As per claim 9, Cloyd in view of Ibrahim in further view of Bond discloses all the elements of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach of notifying crew members of locations that include the available items. Browne teaches of vehicle consumer goods systems and methods, specifically including notifying crew members of locations on the aircraft that include the available items (pg. 1, [0016] which describes a vehicle consumer goods management system that provides for efficient planning of meal plans to be served on-board a vehicle, where barcodes and/or other tracking techniques may be employed to track food items and to track which items remain in stock; and pg. 2, [0017] which describes how individual meals, drinks, or consumables are scanned or otherwise registered, with each cart having a predetermined location in an order specified by the system or a user, and where one or more sensors may be used to monitor conditions during the trip, to suggest and/or implement changes to the plan or order of cars previously specified; and pg. 5, [0039-0041] which describes how the processing unit is configured to track individual food items removed from the plurality of carts and to update the meal plan based on the removed items, where one or more sensors may be used to identify consumables that have been delivered from the carts to the passengers, where overall quantities are tracked as well as quantities on individual carts, and also where if a given cart is low or out of the given consumable, the processing unit may send an alert to crew members that a given cart is low on the given consumable, so that the cart may be replenished or that passengers may receive the consumable from a different cart, and finally how the display of the system may provide information regarding types of consumables in the meal plan, quantities of consumables, and/or location of consumables, where a display is provided that indicates quantities added or quantities removed (e.g. consumables scanned as they are distributed to passengers), where updates may indicate changes to the meal plan due to quantities of distributed consumables (e.g. displays indicating how many of a given consumable remain, alerts that a given cart is out of a consumable, and/or locations of alternate carts that still have the consumable)).
Cloyd in view of Ibrahim in further view of Bond teaches of vehicle attendant task management systems and methods. Browne teaches of vehicle consumer goods systems and methods, specifically including maintaining an inventory of available items and sending an indication when an item is no longer available, as claimed. All references are drawn to the managing of vehicle attendant tasks/services. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cloyd in view of Ibrahim in further view of Bond with maintaining an inventory of available items and sending an indication when an item is no longer available, as taught by Browne, for the purpose of providing “more accurate planning, reducing food waste, reducing weight/the amount of fuel used, and improving customer satisfaction” (Browne, pg. 2, [0018]). By doing so, one would reasonably expect the overall appeal of the invention to improve in both managing the amount of goods used and required efficiently as well as providing optimal customer service.
As per claim 22, it refers to the machine readable storage medium of claim 15 used for performing the above steps. It recites limitations already addressed by claim 9 above, and is therefore rejected under the same art and rationale.
As per claim 36, it refers to the system of claim 28 used for performing the above steps. It recites limitations already addressed by claim 9 above, and is therefore rejected under the same art and rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pace et al. (US 2002/0058550 A1) teaches of an automated service schedule system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY Y YOUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5294. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays, 9:00a-3:00p, 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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. 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.
/ASHLEY Y YOUNG/Examiner, Art Unit 3625
/BETH V BOSWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625