DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This action is a FINAL office action in response to the Applicant’s response filed 8 October 2025.
Claims 2, 7, 9-11, 17 and 19 have been amended.
Claim 8 has been cancelled.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 9-14, 17, and 19-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8 October 2025 with regards to the 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the claims, the Applicant argues on page 7 of their response, “While in many cases directing and monitoring the delivery of ordered goods or services to the ordering customer can be considered to fall under the abstract idea of ‘Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities,’ setting up a bidding system for delivery agents and disqualifying those agents who have already accepted a conflicting job integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. This unique system provides a level of certainty to the purchasing customer that the delivery agent will be able to deliver on time. Also, because the customer is potentially mobile, the customer can be assured that only a legitimate delivery agent has the customer’s current location information. That is, the system prevents a nefarious person from approaching the customer while pretending to be delivering the customer’s order. The bidding/vetting system improves delivery efficiency and reduces customer-risk exposure.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the requirements under 35 USC 101, the bounds of the claimed invention, and the grounds of the previous and current rejection. With respect to the Applicant’s argument that, “setting up a bidding system for delivery agents and disqualifying those agents who have already accepted a conflicting job,” integrates the abstract idea into a practical application, the Examiner is not persuaded. In this case, the claim element, “initiate a bidding process to select which one of a plurality of bidding delivery agents will deliver the purchase order from the merchant to the first user, wherein selecting comprising checking to determine whether a bidding delivery agent has a conflicting job and, if so, disqualifying that delivery agent,” recites an abstract idea, analyzed under step 2A prong one. Specifically, having a bidding process for delivery agents to bid of a delivery job, checking the winning delivery agent to determine if they have a conflicting job, and disqualifying delivery agents with conflicts; encompasses the management of commercial activity (managing sales activities and business relations), as well as activity that can be performed in the human mind (observation evaluation, judgement, opinion). As such, the claimed element recites an abstract idea. With regards to the Applicant argument that this element integrates the abstract idea into a practical application, the Examiner notes that the abstract idea cannot integrate itself into a practical application, and instead, additional elements, taken alone and in combination with the abstract idea, are evaluated under step 2A prong 2. Notably, MPEP 2106.04(II)(B)(2) states, “Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception. If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If, however, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B (where it may still be eligible if it amounts to an ‘‘inventive concept’’). For more information on how to evaluate whether a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, see MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2).” (Emphasis added). The same section continues, “Because a judicial exception is not eligible subject matter, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 601, 95 USPQ2d at 1005-06 (quoting Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309, 206 USPQ at 197 (1980)), if there are no additional claim elements besides the judicial exception, or if the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself."). For a claim reciting a judicial exception to be eligible, the additional elements (if any) in the claim must "transform the nature of the claim" into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217, 110 USPQ2d at 1981, either at Prong Two or in Step 2B. If there are no additional elements in the claim, then it cannot be eligible. In such a case, after making the appropriate rejection (see MPEP § 2106.07 for more information on formulating a rejection for lack of eligibility), it is a best practice for the examiner to recommend an amendment, if possible, that would resolve eligibility of the claim.” (Emphasis added). MPEP 2106.04(d)(III) states, “The Prong Two analysis considers the claim as a whole. That is, the limitations containing the judicial exception as well as the additional elements in the claim besides the judicial exception need to be evaluated together to determine whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. Because a judicial exception alone is not eligible subject matter, if there are no additional claim elements besides the judicial exception, or if the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. However, the way in which the additional elements use or interact with the exception may integrate it into a practical application. Accordingly, the additional limitations should not be evaluated in a vacuum, completely separate from the recited judicial exception. Instead, the analysis should take into consideration all the claim limitations and how those limitations interact and impact each other when evaluating whether the exception is integrated into a practical application.” (Emphasis added). Thus, as shown and emphasized here, the analysis under step 2A prong two is to determine whether the additional elements (i.e. those that are in addition to the recited abstract idea), taken individually and in combination with the abstract idea, integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. It is also noted, that integrating an abstract idea into a practical application is terminology set forth in MPEP 2106.04(d)(I), “Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include: An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a); Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2); Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b); Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).” (Emphasis added). With regards to the Applicant’s argument that, “This unique system provides a level of certainty to the purchasing customer that the delivery agent will be able to deliver on time,” it is noted that this is not a reason for integrating a recited abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically, ensuring a delivery could be made on time, is merely further improving the abstract idea itself (the business process of ordering items for delivery), and not some technology or technical field. Additionally, with respect to the Applicant’s argument about assuring that only a legitimate delivery agent has the customer’s current location information, the Examiner again notes that this is not an improvement in another technology or technical field, but instead is an improvement in the abstract idea. Additionally, it is noted that the Applicant has failed to show any element of the claim that actually recites this, and thus the Applicant’s argument is beyond the scope of the claim, so would not be relevant to determining if the claimed invention recites additional elements that integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. Finally, with respect to the Applicant’s argument that, “the bidding/vetting system improves delivery efficiency and reduces customer-risk exposure,” it is noted that improving delivery efficiency and reducing customer risk exposure, would be improvements to the abstract idea, and not some technology or technical field. It is noted that MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) states, “Notably, the court did not distinguish between the types of technology when determining the invention improved technology. However, 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.” (Emphasis added). Thus, the Applicant’s argument about the claims reciting improvements to the abstract idea are deemed not persuasive as showing the recited abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
The Applicant continues on page 8 of their response, “Using a delivery agent who bid on the delivery and who is confirmed to not have a conflicting job, while clearly involving the judicial exception of ‘Organizing Human Activities,’ is directed toward expanding the utility of the services offered by the commercial environment and thus does not simply recite the judicial exception. Therefore, under the 2019 PEG, Step 2A, Prong 2, and MPEP 2106.05(a), these claims ‘reflect an improvement to [a] technical field’ and thus integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the requirements under 35 USC 101, the bounds of the claimed invention, and the grounds of the previous and current rejection. First, as noted above, “Using a delivery agent who bid on the delivery and who is confirmed to not have a conflicting job,” recites the abstract idea, and is not an additional element, that would integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. Second, as noted above, these claims do not recite an improvement in a “technical field,” and instead, merely recite an improvement in the abstract idea itself, which is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Third, it is noted that the Applicant has failed to identify the “technical field” that is even improved upon with the recitation, and thus, the Applicant’s argument is merely conclusory and does not specifically identify the actual improvement. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
The Applicant continues on page 9 of their response, “Like the invention claimed in McRO, the currently amended claims provide ‘a particular way to achieve a desired outcome,’ here, of improving delivery safety and efficiency. Accordingly, for at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that under Step 2A, Prong 2, the independent claim 2 and its dependent claims are directed to a practical application, and Applicant requests that the §101 rejections be withdrawn.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the requirements under 35 USC 101, the bounds of the claimed invention, and the grounds of the previous and current rejection. First, with respect to McRO, the MPEP states in 2106.05(a), “An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration.” (Emphasis added). As shown here, when determining whether a claim recites an improvement to technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome. In this case, the Applicant has failed to show that the claim recites an improvement to technology, and the Applicant has failed to show that the claim covers a particular solution to a technological problem. Instead, the Applicant has generally stated in their arguments that the claims recite a particular way to achieve a result, and that the improvement is in delivery safety and efficiency; however as noted above, delivery safety and efficiency is not a technology, but instead would be improvements to the abstract idea itself, specifically, the improvements in the business of ordering and delivery of goods. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 9-14, 17, and 19-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 2, the Applicant has amended the claim to state, “receive in real time, over a communication network, from the mobile computing device of the first user, an indication that the purchase order is for delivery, and a real time location of the first user, in which the real time location is generated from a GPS device or a wireless network signal device of the mobile computing device; … receive, in real time, over the communication network, real time locations of the merchant and the selected delivery agent; when, based at least in part, on the received real time locations of the selected delivery agent and the merchant, the selected delivery agent is determined to be within a predefined distance of a location of the merchant, place, via the at least one processor, the purchase order with the merchant.” The Applicant has failed to provide support in their original written description that would convey to one skilled in the art that they were in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. In this case, the Applicant has amended the claim to recite that the purchase order made by the customer, is placed, “when, based at least in part, on the received real time locations of the selected delivery agent and the merchant, the selected delivery agent is determined to be within a predefined distance of a location of the merchant, place, via the at least one processor, the purchase order with the merchant.” The Applicant’s original disclosure does not support this amendment, as the Applicant’s original specification merely discloses placing the order when the customer and the merchant are within a predefined distance of each other. Notably paragraph 81 states, “It should be recognized that while examples are given in terms of difference between customer and merchant locations, that such examples are non-limiting. For example, any locations may be used in various embodiments in any combination. As one example, an order may be transmitted in response to a customer being a distance from home, reaching their work, and so on. Any location and/or distance of a customer from a location may be used as a triggering mechanism for order placement. Similarly any location and/or distance from a location of a merchant may be used as a trigger for order placement. For example, an order may be triggered when a merchant is 2 miles from a customer that is one mile away from their home. Any combination of merchant location, customer location and/or relationships between such locations and any other locations may be used in any combination in various embodiments.” (Emphasis added). As shown and emphasized here, the Applicant’s specification discloses triggering the order placement based on the customer and/or merchant location, however this does not include the delivery agent being within a predefined distance of the merchant triggering the order. As such, the Applicant’s original disclosure lacks written description support for the current claim amendments, and therefore appropriate correction is required. Claims 4, 5, 7, 9-14, 17, and 19-21 depend upon claim 2, and therefore are rejected via dependency.
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 2, 4, 5, 7, 9-14, 17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a processor, memory coupled to the at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: receive, from a mobile computing device of a first user, the purchase order to be placed with the merchant receive in real time, over a communication network, from the mobile computing device of the first user, an indication that the purchase order is for delivery, and a real time location of the first user, in which the real time location is generated from a GPS device or a wireless network signal device of the mobile computing device; and initiate a bidding process to select which one of a plurality of bidding delivery agents will deliver the purchase order from the merchant to the first user, wherein selecting comprising checking to determine whether a bidding delivery agent has a conflicting job and, if so, disqualifying that delivery agent; receive, in real time, over the communication network, real time locations of the merchant and the selected delivery agent; when, based at least in part, on the received real time locations of the selected delivery agent and the merchant, the selected delivery agent is determined to be within a predefined distance of a location of the merchant, place, via the at least one processor, the purchase order with the merchant.
The limitations of receiving a purchase order to be placed with the merchant, receiving an indication that the purchase order is for delivery and a real time location of the first user, initiating a bidding process to select which delivery agent will deliver the purchase order from the merchant to the first user, checking to determine whether a bidding delivery agent has a conflicting job and disqualifying that delivery agent if they do, receiving real time locations of the merchant and the selected delivery agent, and when it is determine that the delivery agent is within a predefined distance of a merchant location then placing the order with the merchant; as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses the management of commercial activities (including managing business relations and sales activities), and elements that can be performed in the human mind. That is, other than reciting the use of generic computer elements (memory, processor, mobile computing device, GPS, communication network), the claims recite an abstract idea. In particular, receiving a purchase order from a customer, including that it is for delivery, and the location of the user; encompasses a customer providing their order for goods/services, identifying their location, and identifying their choice of delivery; which is managing the sales activities and business relations of merchants. In addition, initiating a bidding process to select which delivery agent will deliver the purchase order from the merchant to the first user, checking to determine whether a bidding delivery agent has a conflicting job and disqualifying that delivery agent if they do; encompasses receiving job quotes from delivery agents, and electing only qualified agents that won’t have conflicts, which is the management of commercial activity (business relations and sales activities), and managing human behavior. In addition, placing an order for a customer when the delivery agent is within a predetermined distance of the merchant, encompasses the setting up of a service area for merchants, and placing orders in said area, which is managing the sales activities and business relations of merchants. As such, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas. In addition, initiating a bidding process to select which delivery agent will deliver the purchase order from the merchant to the first user, checking to determine whether a bidding delivery agent has a conflicting job and disqualifying that delivery agent if they do; encompasses elements that can be performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, opinion, judgement). Thus, the claims further recite elements that fall into the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not recite additional elements that improve the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The claims do not recite the use of, or apply the abstract idea with, a particular machine, the claims do not recite the transformation of an article from one state or thing into another. Finally, the claims do not recite additional elements that apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Instead, the claims recite the use of generic computer elements (memory, processor, mobile computing device, GPS, communication network) as tools to carry out the abstract idea. Additionally, the collection of data in real time merely narrows the field of use by defining the time period in which data is reported. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer elements and machines to perform the steps 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. The claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
The dependent claims 4, 5, 7, 9-14, 17, and 19-21, taken individually and in combination, do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea itself. In particular, the claims further recite performing when a user registers for an alert service of the merchant, which encompasses managing advertising and business relations, and thus further recites elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 4). In addition, the claims further recite a customer’s location changing between placing an order and delivery, which merely narrows the field of use by further narrowing defining the type of customer location, and thus does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea itself (claim 5). In addition, the claims further recite providing order details to delivery agents, initiating bidding by delivery agents, and facilitating delivery to the winning bidders; which encompasses allowing deliverers to apply for delivery jobs, and providing them with job details, which encompasses managing business relations and human activity, and thus further recites elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 7). In addition, the claims further recite receiving evidence of changes in custody during a delivery process; which encompasses tracking deliveries, and thus encompasses managing business relations and human activity, and thus further recites elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas (claims 9-11). In addition, the claims recite the identification that a delivery is incorrect, which encompasses managing business relations and human activity, and thus further recites elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 11). In addition, the claims recite the use of a generic computer element (mobile device) to receive, process, and transmit information, which is deemed merely using a generic computer element as a tool to carry out the abstract idea, and therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea itself (claim 9-11). In addition, the claims further recite transmitting advertisements to customer devices in a region when a threshold number of customers is reached, which is deemed merely advertisement, and thus, further recites elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas (claims 12-14). In addition, the claims further recite transmitting customer locations to the merchant, which is deemed providing a delivery address/location to the merchant, and thus managing sales activities and business relations, and thus further recites elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 17). In addition, the claims further recite using generic computer elements (display, second computing device) as tools to carry out the abstract idea, and thus does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea itself (claim 17). In addition, the claims further recite that the merchant is mobile, and tracking the merchant’s location, which is merely further reciting managing business relations and sales activities by describing tracking mobile merchants and customers, and thus further recites elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 19). In addition, the claims further recite using generic computer elements (GPS) to carry out the abstract idea, and further recites the content of information provided to a merchant, which merely narrows the field of use; and thus does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea itself (claim 19). In addition, the claims further recite transmitting advertisements to customer devices in a region when a threshold number of customers is reached, which is deemed merely advertisement, and thus, further recites elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas (claims 20 and 21).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 9-14, 17, and 19-21 are allowed over the prior art of record. In this case, the claim 2 recites, “receive in real time, over a communication network, from the mobile computing device of the first user, an indication that the purchase order is for delivery, and a real time location of the first user, in which the real time location is generated from a GPS device or a wireless network signal device of the mobile computing device; and initiate a bidding process to select which one of a plurality of bidding delivery agents will deliver the purchase order from the merchant to the first user, wherein selecting comprising checking to determine whether a bidding delivery agent has a conflicting job and, if so, disqualifying that delivery agent; receive, in real time, over the communication network real time locations of the merchant and the selected delivery agent; and when, based at least in part, on the received real time locations of the selected delivery agent and the merchant, the selected delivery agent is determined to be within a predefined distance of a location of the merchant, place, via the at least one processor, the purchase order with the merchant.” As shown and emphasized here, the automatic placing of the purchase order when the selected delivery agent is within a predefined distance from the merchant, and tracking the real time locations of the customer, merchant, and selected delivery agent, is novel and non-obvious, however remains rejected under other statutes, including 35 USC 112a, and 101.
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 MICHAEL P HARRINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1365. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Jeffrey can be reached on (571) 272-4602. 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.
Michael Harrington
Primary Patent Examiner
18 December 2025
Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628