Detailed Action
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Action is in reply to the Amendment filed on 10/7/2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended. The Claim Objections are resolved by Amendment.
Claim Rejection - 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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
First, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention. In the instant case, claims 1-7 are directed to a machine. Therefore, claims 1-7 are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 as described in MPEP 2106 (Step 1: YES).
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception. In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), as well as analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception (Prong Two of Step 2A).
Claim 1 recites at least the following limitations that are believed to recite an abstract idea:
create a listing for a pre-owned vehicle based on vehicle information from a prospective seller, wherein the pre-owned vehicle includes one or more vehicle systems having initial settings for operation of the pre-owned vehicle;
identify a first test drive of the pre-owned vehicle with a first user of a plurality of users scheduled for a test drive window;
monitor scheduling events for the pre-owned vehicle for a scheduling period after the test drive window, wherein a scheduling event is an interaction between a user of the plurality of users and the pre-owned vehicle;
send the first user an ownership notification in response to determining that no scheduling events for a second test drive of the pre-owned vehicle with a second user of the plurality of users have occurred during the scheduling period;
receive feedback from the first user based on the ownership notification, wherein the feedback identifies the first user as a new owner of the pre-owned vehicle; and
generate a new owner profile for the new owner and reconfigure at least one physical vehicle system, including at least an information system, seat adjustment system, or driver assistance system, based on the new owner profile, thereby altering operation of the pre-owned vehicle in real-time.
The above limitations recite the concept of vehicle transfer & test-drive management. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106, in that they recite commercial interactions, e.g. sales activities/behaviors, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, e.g., following rules or instructions. Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A, claims 1-7 are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Prong Two of Step 2A is the next step in the eligibility analyses and looks at whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. This requires an additional element or combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or user 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 instance, the claims recite the additional elements of:
A system comprising a processor and a memory storing processor-executed instructions
Steps being performed automatically
An infotainment system
However, these elements do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; 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, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception.
In addition, the recitations are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; 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, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception.
The dependent claims also fail to recite elements which amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; 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, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception. For example, claims 2-6 are directed to the abstract idea itself and do not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above. As for claim 7, these claims are similar to the independent claims except that they recite the further additional elements of an infotainment system and a display. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; 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, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception. Therefore the dependent claims do not create an integration for the same reasons.
Step 2B is the next step in the eligibility analyses and evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e., “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. According to Office procedure, revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be re-evaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same.
In Step 2A, several additional elements were identified as additional limitations:
A system comprising a processor and a memory storing processor-executed instructions
Steps being performed automatically
An infotainment system
These additional limitations, including the limitations in the dependent claims, do not amount to an inventive concept because they were already analyzed under Step 2A and did not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims lack one or more limitations which amount to an inventive concept in the claims.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
First, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention. In the instant case, claims 8-14 are directed to a process. Therefore, claims 8-14 are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 as described in MPEP 2106 (Step 1: YES).
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception. In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), as well as analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception (Prong Two of Step 2A).
Claim 8 recites at least the following limitations that are believed to recite an abstract idea:
creating a listing for a pre-owned vehicle based on vehicle information from a prospective seller;
identifying a first test drive of the pre-owned vehicle with a first user of a plurality of users scheduled for a test drive window;
monitoring scheduling events for the pre-owned vehicle for a scheduling period after the test drive window, wherein a scheduling event is an interaction between a user of the plurality of users and the pre-owned vehicle;
sending the first user an ownership notification in response to determining that no scheduling events have occurred for a second test drive of the pre-owned vehicle with a second user of the plurality of users have occurred during the scheduling period;
receiving feedback from the first user based on the ownership notification, wherein the feedback identifies the first user as a new owner of the pre-owned vehicle; and
generating a new owner profile for the new owner and reconfiguring one or more physical vehicle systems of the pre-owned vehicle, including at least an information system, seat adjustment system, or driver assistance system, to alter operation of the vehicle in accordance with the new owner profile.
The above limitations recite the concept of vehicle transfer & test-drive management. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106, in that they recite commercial interactions, e.g. sales activities/behaviors, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, e.g., following rules or instructions. Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A, claims 8-14 are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Prong Two of Step 2A is the next step in the eligibility analyses and looks at whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. This requires an additional element or combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or user 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 instance, the claims recite the additional elements of:
An infotainment system
However, these elements do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; 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, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception.
In addition, the recitations are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; 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, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception.
The dependent claims also fail to recite elements which amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; 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, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception. For example, claims 9-14 are directed to the abstract idea itself and do not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above. Therefore the dependent claims do not create an integration for the same reasons.
Step 2B is the next step in the eligibility analyses and evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e., “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. According to Office procedure, revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be re-evaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same.
In Step 2A, several additional elements were identified as additional limitations:
An infotainment system
These additional limitations, including the limitations in the dependent claims, do not amount to an inventive concept because they were already analyzed under Step 2A and did not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims lack one or more limitations which amount to an inventive concept in the claims.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
First, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention. In the instant case, claims 15-20 are directed to an article of manufacture. Therefore, claims 15-20 are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 as described in MPEP 2106 (Step 1: YES).
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception. In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), as well as analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception (Prong Two of Step 2A).
Claim 15 recites at least the following limitations that are believed to recite an abstract idea:
creating a listing for a pre-owned vehicle based on vehicle information from a prospective seller, wherein the pre-owned vehicle includes one or more vehicle systems having initial settings for operation of the pre-owned vehicle;
identifying a first test drive of the pre-owned vehicle with a first user of a plurality of users scheduled for a test drive window;
monitoring scheduling events for the pre-owned vehicle for a scheduling period after the test drive window, wherein a scheduling event is an interaction between a user of the plurality of users and the pre-owned vehicle;
sending the first user an ownership notification in response to determining that no scheduling events for a second test drive of the pre-owned vehicle a the second user of the plurality of users have occurred during the scheduling period;
receiving feedback from the first user based on the ownership notification, wherein the feedback identifies the first user as a new owner of the pre-owned vehicle; and
generating a new owner profile for the new owner and causing reconfiguration of one or more physical vehicle systems of the pre-owned vehicle, including at least an information system, seat adjustment system, or driver assistance system, to alter operation of the vehicle in accordance with the new owner profile.
The above limitations recite the concept of vehicle transfer & test-drive management. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106, in that they recite commercial interactions, e.g. sales activities/behaviors, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, e.g., following rules or instructions. Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A, claims 15-20 are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Prong Two of Step 2A is the next step in the eligibility analyses and looks at whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. This requires an additional element or combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or user 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 instance, the claims recite the additional elements of:
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions that when executed by a computer having a processor to perform a method
An infotainment system
However, these elements do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; 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, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception.
In addition, the recitations are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; 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, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception.
The dependent claims also fail to recite elements which amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; 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, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception. For example, claims 16-20 are directed to the abstract idea itself and do not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above. Therefore the dependent claims do not create an integration for the same reasons.
Step 2B is the next step in the eligibility analyses and evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e., “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. According to Office procedure, revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be re-evaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same.
In Step 2A, several additional elements were identified as additional limitations:
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions that when executed by a computer having a processor to perform a method
An infotainment system
These additional limitations, including the limitations in the dependent claims, do not amount to an inventive concept because they were already analyzed under Step 2A and did not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims lack one or more limitations which amount to an inventive concept in the claims.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable over Prior Art of Record
Claims 1-20 are allowable over prior art though rejected on other grounds (e.g. 101) as discussed above. The combination of elements of the claim as a whole are not found in the prior art.
Claims 1-20 would be allowable over prior art if rewritten to overcome the rejections above and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the totality of the evidence, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of the Applicant’s invention.
In the present application, claims 1-20 are allowable over prior art. The most related prior art patent of record include Li et al (US 20200258136 A1), Washington et al (US 20170169398 A1), Wickett (US 20180096398 A1), and Lortz et al (US 20140200737 A1).
Li discloses systems for selling cars with existing owners [Abstract], which includes listings including details on each vehicle received from the current owner [0047]. A potential buyer requests a test drive during a period of time [0062], and monitors the test drive activity [0063]. Subsequently, the system determines and stores information including test drive data and if the buyer purchased the specific vehicle [0045].
Similarly, Washington teaches systems for handling on-demand test drives [Abstract], including scheduling test drives during set windows in a calendar, and facilitating the test drive [0057]. The system also supports subsequent steps involved in purchasing the vehicle after the test drive [0072], including with respect to payment for transfer of ownership [0055].
Additionally, Wickett teaches systems for online product listings [Abstract], including scheduling of a test drive for a vehicle [0049] and automatically facilitating purchasing and paperwork for the transfer of ownership of the vehicle [0050].
Lortz further teaches systems for managing a vehicle [Abstract], including registering a new vehicle owner to a specific vehicle [0041] and automatically updating their in-vehicle settings, e.g. radio, climate control, within the vehicle’s computer systems [0039].
However, each of these limitations fail to disclose or render obvious at least the limitations to monitor scheduling events for the pre-owned vehicle for a scheduling period after the test drive window, wherein a scheduling event is an interaction between a user of the plurality of users and the pre-owned vehicle; and send the first user an ownership notification in response to determining that no scheduling events for a second test drive of the pre-owned vehicle with a second user of the plurality of users have occurred during the scheduling period.
Each of these references fail to disclose or render obvious the combination of limitations in the independent claims 1, 8, and 15, alone or in obvious combination. Therefore, at least for the combination of elements recited in the independent claims, the independent claims and those that depend thereon are allowable over prior art if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/7/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejection – 35 USC §101
Applicant argues with respect to Step 2A Prong 1 that the “amended claims expressly recite operations that culminate in the automatic reconfiguration of physical vehicle systems in real time,” which is “performed by computing devices embedded within the vehicle and connected via in-vehicle networks,” such that the claims are “directed to technological processes for automated ownership detection and vehicle adaptation, not to an abstract idea.”
Examiner disagrees. The claims do not recite any “computing devices embedded within the vehicle and connected via in-vehicle networks.” With reference to the rejection above, the claims recite steps for managing test drives and handling the transfer of ownership of a test-driven vehicle, including the “reconfiguration” of a physical vehicle system. Claim 1 specifics that this reconfiguration is performed in real-time. These limitations fall within Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, except for the recitation of additional elements as identified above, such as a step being performed automatically (in Claim 1) and one of the possible systems being reconfigured being “an infotainment system.” Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract process for vehicle ownership management & test-drive management.
Applicant argues with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2 that the claims “are integrated into a practical application that approves the functioning of vehicle technology itself.” Applicant argues that the claims “are rooted in vehicle computing architectures that include telematics units, electronic control units, and operational subsystems connected via in-vehicle networks such as CAN bus and LIN bus protocols,” and that “the ownership determination process directly drives real-time reconfiguration of physical vehicle systems, including infotainment personalization through display modifications, seat adjustment through motor control, and driver assistance parameter updates through sensor calibration changes. These are concrete technological operations that change how the vehicle itself functions, not abstract processes divorced from technology.”
Examiner disagrees, noting that the claims do not recite “vehicle computing architectures that include telematics units, electronic control units, and operational subsystems connected via in-vehicle networks such as CAN bus and LIN bus protocols,” and neither the claims nor the Specification disclose “seat adjustment through motor control, and driver assistance parameter updates through sensor calibration changes.” Instead, the claims recite an abstract process for managing test drives and transferring ownership, including reconfiguring a vehicle system, except for the recitation of computer-related additional elements recited at a high level of generality, e.g. a step being automatic, an infotainment system, a processor, a memory, etc. Rather than providing “concrete technological operations,” the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer [MPEP 2106.05(f)], providing only a general linking to a technical field.
Applicant further argues that the claims address “a specific technological problem in peer-to-peer vehicle sales where conventional dealer-mediated ownership transfer systems are unavailable. Traditional dealer workflows rely on human intermediaries to confirm ownership and manually adjust vehicle settings for a new owner. The claimed invention(s) instead provides an automated technological solution: marketplace scheduling events and ownership notifications are processed directly by vehicle computing modules, and feedback identifying the new owner is used to trigger immediate subsystem reconfiguration. The system integrates marketplace data with the vehicle's computing infrastructure to execute real-time control actions that alter the operational state of the vehicle.” Applicant states that the claims “automate and improve vehicle ownership transition processes through specific integration with vehicle control systems. The result is a technological solution that produces measurable improvements to vehicle functionality and user experience in peer-to-peer sales contexts.”
Examiner disagrees. While the examiner acknowledges that improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field may constitute integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), the instant claims do not provide a technical improvement. Rather, the claims at best provide an improvement to the abstract idea of vehicle ownership transfer. With respect to Applicant’s argument that the claimed limitations provide the benefit of “integrat[ing] marketplace data with the vehicle’s computing infrastructure to execute real-time control actions”, the examiner notes that reconfiguring a subsystem of a vehicle for a new owner is not a technical improvement, but rather an element of the abstract idea. Although the claims include computer technology such as a processor and an (optional) infotainment system, such elements are merely peripherally incorporated in order to implement the abstract idea. Put another way, these additional elements are merely used to apply the abstract idea of ownership transfer and test drive management in a technological environment without effectuating any improvement or change to the functioning of the additional elements or other technology. This is unlike the improvements recognized by the courts in cases such as Enfish, Core Wireless, and McRO. Unlike precedential cases, neither the specification nor the claims of the instant invention identify such a specific improvement to computer capabilities, e.g. the argued “an automated technological solution”. The instant claims are not directed to technological improvements but are directed to improving the business method of ownership transfer management. The claimed process, while arguably resulting in a more helpful process for handing over ownership of a purchased vehicle, is not providing any improvement to another technology or technical field as the claimed process is not, for example, improving the generic computing components that operate the system. Rather, the claimed process is managing data and reconfiguring a system while still employing the same devices and programs used in conventional systems to perform a business method, and therefore is merely applying the abstract idea using generic computing components. As such, the claims are not integrated into practical application.
Applicant argues with respect to Step 2B that the claims “recite an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than well-understood, routine, conventional activity,” creating “a technological solution that cannot be reliably performed by humans alone and that was not conventional in the art,” namely “an automated system that monitors marketplace scheduling activity, infers ownership transitions, and executes real-time reconfiguration of vehicle subsystems based on user feedback. These operations are carried out within the vehicle computing environment and require integration with electronic control units, in-vehicle networks, and physical subsystems such as infotainment, seat adjustment, and driver assistance modules.” Applicant argues that “the same technological features that distinguish the invention(s) from prior art also demonstrate that the claims recite significantly more than an abstract idea.”
Examiner disagrees. Similar to the reasons addressed above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the claims do not provide a “technological solution” to a technological problem, nor are “electronic control units, in-vehicle networks, and physical subsystems such as infotainment, seat adjustment, and driver assistance modules” recited or required by the claims. The claims merely recite generic computing components to provide a general linking to a technological environment [MPEP 2106.05(f)], with the alleged improvement at best being a business improvement stemming solely from the abstract idea. In addition, and with reference to the rejection above, it is noted that the claims have been determined to be allowable over prior art, they have not been determined to recite “technological features that distinguish… from prior art” which could demonstrate “significantly more than the abstract idea;” in contrast, the claims have been found allowable for at least the recitation of the abstract step to “send the first user an ownership notification in response to determining that no scheduling events for a second test drive of the pre-owned vehicle with a second user of the plurality of users have occurred during the scheduling period,” not for a technological or computer-related feature. Furthermore, Applicant is reminded that “a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea,” with determination of obviousness being “of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim” [MPEP 2106.05(I)].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 THOMAS JOSEPH SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9736. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 8-5 PT.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached on 571-272-6764. 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.
/T.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/MARISSA THEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3689