DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the reply filed December 29, 2025.
Claims 1, 3-5, 9-11, 13-14, and 16-17 have been amended.
Claims 1-18 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
The previous claim objections have been withdrawn in response to the submitted amendments.
The previous rejection under 35 USC 112 to claims 3, 5-6, 9-13, and 16-17 have been withdrawn in response to the submitted amendments.
Applicant’s arguments filed December 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 112, Applicant submitted the following arguments:
With respect to Claim 2, the Action alleged that the term "like" within "box-like shape" is "an approximation" making the scope unclear. Applicant respectfully notes that the term "like" is not present in the claims, but, rather, the word "box-like" is. The term "boxlike" has a distinct meaning in common usage. See, e.g., Webster 's Online Dictionary, at entry for "boxlike," meaning "resembling a box especially in shape: rectangular and hollow." Applicant requests that the interpretation used by the examiner is not reasonable given the established significance of the entire term "box-like," as indicated by a dictionary of common usage. Reconsideration of the significance of Claim 2, based on this established common usage, set forth above. Reconsideration under the reasonable interpretation set forth above is respectfully requested.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner does not dispute that Webster’s Online Dictionary has a definition for “boxlike,” however the claim term “boxlike” does not meet the requirements under 35 USC 112(b). Applicant’s suggested definition of “boxlike” raises the same question of definiteness because “resembling a box” does not provide an objective standard for determining how much a shape must resemble a box in order to satisfy the claim. There is no objective measure for determining the boundary that defines when a shopping bag, that is not in the shape of a box, becomes boxlike. In other words, boxlike fails to establish the scope of how many shapes, in addition to a box, are covered by the claim term “boxlike.”
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 112, Applicant submitted the following arguments:
With respect to Claim 14, Applicant has respectfully requested an amendment to clarify the complementary shape of the opening. Applicant notes that Claim 14 now depends from Claim 2, wherein the bag has a box-like shape, under some circumstances, to help clarify that meaning. However, Applicant does not agree that the interpretation "complementary to" to simply mean "larger than" is a reasonable interpretation. In accordance with common usage, as evidenced by, for example, Webster's online dictionary, the term "complementary" means "serving to fill ... ." See Webster 's Online Dictionary, at entry for "complementary." A much larger opening would not be filled by an object. Reconsideration under the reasonable interpretation based on common usage, as set forth above, is respectfully requested.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner does not dispute that Webster’s Online Dictionary has a definition for “complementary to,” however the claim term “complementary to” does not meet the requirements under 35 USC 112(b). There is no objective measure for determining when a shape is sufficiently similar to be considered complementary. Applicant’s suggested definition of “complementary to” raises the same question of definiteness because “serving to fill…” does not provide an objective standard for determining how filled the shape of the opening must be in order to satisfy the claim. There is no objective measure for determining the boundary that defines when the shape of an opening is sufficient filled to amount to being complementary to the box-like shape of the shopping bag.
Regarding the previous double patenting rejection, Applicant submitted the following arguments:
The Action raised a double-patenting rejection against Claims 1 - 16, on the grounds that they would be unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 10,723,515 ("the '515 Patent"). An e-terminal disclaimer, related to the '515 Patent is being filed as soon as possible. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the Double-Patenting Rejection will be overcome.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. No terminal disclaimer has been filed; therefore, the previous double-patenting rejection has been maintained.
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant submitted the following arguments:
Next, Applicant notes that it does not agree that the Claims recite a judicial exception, under Step 2A - Prong 1. The Action posited that Claim 1 et seq. are directed to "a method of organizing human activity" and declares that "providing a shopper with storage and shipping services" is a such an activity, and a "mental activity." (Action, at 10.) Creating new storage and shipment devices and facilities, such as that included in the methods of Claim 1 are real world, specialized and structural things, not "mental processes." Although some steps may involve human activity, the invention is not limited to organizing human activity. In practice, any claimed invention will at least involve an abstract idea, even if they do not recite one, but that is not the test under Step 2A - Prong 1. In other words, reciting unique new tools that may be used for storage shipping is not reciting the abstract idea of shipping itself. In any event, Applicant will focus its analysis on Steps 2A - Prong 2, and Step 2B, as interpreted by M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (a) and caselaw, below, which renders further discussion of whether the Claims recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1 moot for the time being.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The mere presence of tangible physical components does not prohibit the finding of an abstract idea under Step 2A. This is similar to the claims in Content Extraction v. Wells Fargo Bank which contained tangible physical components and yet still contained an abstract idea under Step 2A. The court in Smart Sys. Innovations reiterated the Court in Alice by stating that claims are necessarily performed in the physical rather than the conceptual, realm … is beside the point. See Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chi. Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant submitted the following arguments:
M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (a) reminds examiners that, regardless of whether they are at Step 2A or Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test, they should consider whether a "streamlined analysis" is appropriate, if it is readily apparent that the claim recites an improvement of "the functioning of [a] computer itself' or 'any other technology or technical field."' (Id., citing Alice, infra). Simply put, the invention claimed in Claim 1 improves the function of storage and shipment system. Before the present invention, using available shipment systems, customers had to make a choice at purchase: A) Take their purchase with them from the store, or, in some instances, B) leave the item with the shopkeeper, and request the retailer to ship it to them. With the significant improvements embodied in the method set forth in Claim 1, a customer can instead carry their purchase with them and walk out of the store, continue to shop, and decide later whether to quickly ship the item, simply by dropping it into an opening of a kiosk. The increased convenience and shopping flexibility afforded by this new system are highly unusual, and cannot be discounted - it is a significant improvement in the technical field. As appears to be recognized by the examiner in the parent case, this is a unique new system, and clearly not simply a generic computer performing known tasks. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (b). Thus, at the outset, and before completing an analysis of Step 2A or Step 2B, Claim 1 et seq. should be considered eligible, because they qualify as improvements to computer systems and a technical field, using a new form of machine, under a streamlined analysis. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (a); see also M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (b).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The identified improvements argued by Applicant are really, at best, improvements to the performance of the abstract idea itself (e.g. improvements made in the underlying business method) and not in the operations of any additional elements or technology. See Return Mail, Inc. v. USPS, 868 F.3d 1350, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ([The claims] do not improve the functioning of the computer or barcode system itself. Instead, they apply those functionalities in the context of processing return mail.) For example, in Trading Tech, the court determined that the claim 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. Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant submitted the following arguments:
In any event, if proceeding under Step 2A - Prong 2, Claim 1 et seq. "integrate [any] recited [abstract idea] into a practical application of that exception," and are eligible on that ground as well. As discussed above, under M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (a), the claimed method involves several structural, practical elements within the devices included with method Claim 1 et seq., which are "significantly more" than an abstract idea alone, and sufficiently specialized to be eligible under Section 101. Even if an abstract concept is included within the subject matter claimed, it is integrated "into a practical application of that exception." See Independent Claims 1. See generally M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (b). For example, in Claim 1, there are the practical new elements of 1) a new, specialized form of symbol, which is 2) specifically recorded to include a 3) purchase record of goods made by the user at 4) a real-world retail location, and in 5) an encoded format, making it 6) scannable and interpretable only by a 7) unique control system at a shipping location, configured to ship a form of shippable shopping bag. In real terms, this practical application allows a user to decide, even after taking personal possession of a purchased item in a shopping bag, and continuing to shop, to have the item shipped from the mall by a retailer-authorized shipping facility, and also authorizing the shipment by decoding the encoded purchase information from the specialized symbol on the bag - a highly unusual, and useful, practical new application that significantly advances the current state of retail and shipping systems and methods. This unusual, useful nature of the practical application is underscored by the fact that the prior examiner, in the parent case, allowed it with no Section 101 rejection.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The mere presence of tangible physical components does not prohibit the finding of an abstract idea under Step 2A. This is similar to the claims in Content Extraction v. Wells Fargo Bank which contained tangible physical components and yet still contained an abstract idea under Step 2A. The court in Smart Sys. Innovations reiterated the Court in Alice by stating that claims are necessarily performed in the physical rather than the conceptual, realm … is beside the point. See Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chi. Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
The claimed control system is a generic computer component. The programmed computer or "special purpose computer" test of In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 31 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (i.e., the rationale that an otherwise ineligible algorithm or software could be made patent-eligible by merely adding a generic computer to the claim for the "special purpose" of executing the algorithm or software) was also superseded by the Supreme Court’s Bilski and Alice Corp. decisions. Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 623, 114 USPQ2d 1711, 1715 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("[W]e note that Alappat has been superseded by Bilski, 561 U.S. at 605–06, and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)"); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., 792 F.3d 1363, 1366, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("An abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer").
The recital of a symbol as an identifier is limiting the claim to a particular type of data (such as power grid data or XML tags) could be considered to be both insignificant extra-solution activity and a field of use limitation. See, e.g., Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (limiting use of abstract idea to the Internet); Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (limiting use of abstract idea to use with XML tags).
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant submitted the following arguments:
Also, for the same reasons set forth above, under Step 2B, and under M.P.E.P. §2106.05 (e), Claim 1 et seq. adds specific, meaningful additional limitations, "beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment." By creating a new, shippable form of shopping bag, with flexible outer component(s), encoded with a symbol and associating that symbol with a record of a purchase of goods, and pre-authorizing the storing and shipping of said shopping bag at a specialized storage and shipping location, several new and unique devices and facilities systems are involved, which are fundamentally, structurally different from existing systems. The invention is not simply linking an existing mental process with a new environment. Shipping systems for retail exist. The unique new solution of the present application allows a customer to decide whether to store or ship goods after purchase, in the same shopping trip, and with a specialized shippable shopping bag, is implemented.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Supreme Court’s decisions make it clear that judicial exceptions need not be old or long-prevalent, and that even newly discovered or novel judicial exceptions are still exceptions. For example, the mathematical formula in Flook, the laws of nature in Mayo, and the isolated DNA in Myriad were all novel or newly discovered, but nonetheless were considered by the Supreme Court to be judicial exceptions because they were "‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that lie beyond the domain of patent protection." Myriad, 133 S. Ct. at 2112, 2116, 106 USPQ2d at 1976, 1978 (noting that Myriad discovered the BRCA1 and BRCA1 genes and quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. 71, 101 USPQ2d at 1965); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 591-92 (1978) ("the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all"); Mayo, 566 U.S. 73-74, 78, 101 USPQ2d 1966, 1968 (noting that the claims embody the researcher's discoveries of laws of nature). See also MPEP 2106.04(I). Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting "the Government’s invitation to substitute §§ 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better-established inquiry under § 101 "). As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9). See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty.") See also MPEP 2106.05(I).
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 103, Applicant did not submit arguments. The rejections under 35 USC 103 below have been maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 and 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a box-like shape” in line 2. The use of the word “like” is an approximation that makes it unclear which shapes Applicant intends to cover. See MPEP 2173.05(b)(III). In other words, there is no indication of how similar a shape must be to a box in order to constitute a box-like shape. For the purposes of compact prosecution “a box-like shape” has been interpreted to mean “a box shape.”
Claim 14 depends from claim 2 and therefore inherits the above rejection of claim 2.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “an opening with a shape complementary to, and able to accept, said shopping bag, when said shopping bag is converted into said box-like shape” in lines 2-3. The shape is defined relative to the box-like shape of the shopping bag in claim 2 by being “complementary.” However, the box-like shape of the shopping bag is an approximation which means the shape of the opening is both relative to an approximation and is also an approximation itself both of which render the claimed shape indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(b)(II).
Claim 14 recites the limitation “complementary to” in lines 2-3. The use of the word “complementary” is an approximation that makes it unclear which shapes Applicant intends to cover. See MPEP 2173.05(b)(III). It cannot be determined how different of a shape can be from a box-like shape can be for the opening to still be complementary to a box-like shape. The claim does not state the shape is the same as the box like shape and therefore the difference between box-like and complementary to box-like would need to be determined and that difference cannot be determined. For the purposes of compact prosecution “complementary” has been interpreted to mean larger than the shopping bag.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 10,723,515 in view of Buettgenbach et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2002/0032613 A1).
The current application adds the limitation that a purchase occurs at “at a real-world retail location” which is taught by Buettgenbach (Buettgenbach [0009] direct retail; [0073] shopping mall; [0101] will call center performs partially automated shipping process; [0102] receive shipping information; [0103] estimate shipping charges and verify payment authorization; [0104] receive the package at the will call center; [0105] prepare the item for shipping; [0106] provide the package to the common carrier; [0107] bill for actual shipping charges; [0108] notify a user the package has been shipped). The known technique purchasing items by direct retail of Buettgenbach, as shown above, is applicable to the system of the ‘515 patent as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are providing storage and shipping services. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of purchasing items by direct retail of Buettgenbach to providing storage and shipping services of Buettgenbach would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Buettgenbach to the teaching of the ‘515 patent would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such purchasing items by direct retail features into storage and shipping services systems. Further, applying purchasing items by direct retail to the ‘515 patent, would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more efficient shopping experience that reduces returns by allowing customers to assess the items they’re buying before purchasing them.
Although the remaining limitations of the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the remaining elements of the application claims are to be found in the patent. The difference between the application claims and the patent claims lies in the fact that the patent claims include more elements and are thus more specific. Thus, the invention of claims 1-7 of the reference application is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of the application claims 1-6. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since application claims 1-6 are obvious over by claims 1-7 of the patent in view of Buettgenbach, it is not patentably distinct.
Claim 1-16 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,880,848 in view of Buettgenbach et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2002/0032613 A1).
The current application adds the limitation that a purchase occurs at “at a real-world retail location” which is taught by Buettgenbach (Buettgenbach [0009] direct retail; [0073] shopping mall; [0101] will call center performs partially automated shipping process; [0102] receive shipping information; [0103] estimate shipping charges and verify payment authorization; [0104] receive the package at the will call center; [0105] prepare the item for shipping; [0106] provide the package to the common carrier; [0107] bill for actual shipping charges; [0108] notify a user the package has been shipped). The known technique purchasing items by direct retail of Buettgenbach, as shown above, is applicable to the system of the ‘848 patent as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are providing storage and shipping services. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of purchasing items by direct retail of Buettgenbach to providing storage and shipping services of Buettgenbach would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Buettgenbach to the teaching of the ‘848 patent would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such purchasing items by direct retail features into storage and shipping services systems. Further, applying purchasing items by direct retail to the ‘848 patent, would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more efficient shopping experience that reduces returns by allowing customers to assess the items they’re buying before purchasing them.
Although the remaining limitations of the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the remaining elements of the application claims are to be found in the patent. The difference between the application claims and the patent claims lies in the fact that the patent claims include more elements and are thus more specific. Thus, the invention of claims 1-7 of the reference application is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of the application claims 1-6. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since application claims 1-6 are obvious over by claims 1-7 of the patent in view of Buettgenbach, it is not patentably distinct.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 1:
Claims 1-16 recite a series of steps and therefore recite a process.
Claims 17-18 recite a combination of devices and therefore recite a machine.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2A – Prong 1:
Claims 1 and 17, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea of providing a shopper with storage and shipping services for their purchase, which is a method of organizing human activity and a mental process. The claims recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) by reciting rules or instructions for storing and shipping a shopping bag. The claims recite a mental process because the identified idea contains limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) by reciting observing a symbol, evaluating a shopping bag, and judging authorization for storing and shipping. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The method of organizing human activity and mental process of “providing a shopper with storage and shipping services for their purchase,” is recited by claiming the following limitations: providing a shopping bag to a user, encoding the shopping bag with a symbol, placing goods in the shopping bag, pre-authorizing storing and shipping, confirming pre-authorization. The mere nominal recitation of a shopping bag, a symbol, a shipping facility, a shopping mall, a control system comprising computer hardware and a display, and specialized GUI tools does not take the claim of the method of organizing human activity or mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With regards to Claims 4-5, 11, 16, and 18, the claims further recite the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) by reciting the following limitations: a user preauthorizing shipment, a second user preauthorizing shipment, accepting a shopping bag for storage and shipping, executing a payment, and returning shopping bags to a user.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2A – Prong 2:
Claims 1 and 17 recite the additional elements: a shopping bag, a symbol, a shipping facility, a shopping mall, a control system comprising computer hardware and a display, and specialized GUI tools. The control system comprising computer hardware and display, and specialized GUI limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The symbol is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The shopping bag, shipping facility, and shopping mall limit the field of use by generally linking the identified abstract idea to the item handling field. Taken individually these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 11-12, 15, and 18 recite the additional elements: shipping station, conveyance device, a control system comprising computer hardware and a display, additional specialized GUI tools, and a kiosk. The conveyance device in these steps are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic conveyance performing a generic conveying function. The control system comprising computer hardware and a display, and additional specialized GUI tools limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The shipping station and kiosk limit the field of use by generally linking the identified abstract idea to the shipping field. Taken individually these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Considering the limitations containing the judicial exception as well as the additional elements in the claim besides the judicial exception does not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim as a whole does not improve the functioning of a computer or improve other technology or improve a technical field. The claim as a whole is not implemented with a particular machine. The claim as a whole does not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state. The claim as a whole is not applied in any 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. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of holding an item for a shopper in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing customer service process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2B:
Claims 1 and 17 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims recite a generic computer performing generic computer function by reciting a control system comprising computer hardware and a display, and specialized GUI tools. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1341 (describing a “processor” as a generic computer component); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims reciting an “interface,” “network,” and a “database” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347–48 (discussing the same with respect to “data” and “memory”). The claims recite the following computer functions recognized by the courts as generic computer functions by reciting processing information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) performing repetitive calculations, Flook; Bancorp Services) and presenting information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g) presenting offers gathering statistics, OIP Technologies). The specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the following additional elements because they are described in a manner that indicates the elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a): a control system comprising computer hardware and a display (Specification p. 40), and specialized GUI tools (Specification p. 40-41). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2). The claims add the words “apply it” or words equivalent to “apply the abstract idea” such as instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer by reciting a control system comprising computer hardware and a display, and specialized GUI tools. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims recite instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer by providing a user interface, and responding to a user interface using the computer's ordinary ability to display and process data inputs. (See MPEP 2106.05(f) accessing information through a mobile interface Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co.; Generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location as performed by generic computer components, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.) The claims recite insignificant extrasolution activity (i.e. mere data gathering, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, or an insignificant application) by reciting a symbol. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The claims limit the field of use by reciting a shopping bag, a shipping facility, and a shopping mall. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. See MPEP 2106.05(b). Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements alone, and in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
With regards to Claims 11-12, 15, and 18, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 15 and 18 recite a generic computer performing generic computer functions by reciting a control system comprising computer hardware and a display, and additional specialized GUI tools. Regarding claims 12, 15, and 18, the specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the following additional elements because they are described in a manner that indicates the elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a): a conveyance device (Specification p. 38, 42, 43), a control system comprising computer hardware and a display (Specification p. 40), and additional specialized GUI tools (Specification p. 40-41). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2). Claims 12, 15, and 18 add the words “apply it” or words equivalent to “apply the abstract idea” such as instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer by reciting a conveyance device, a control system comprising computer hardware and a display, and additional specialized GUI tools. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Claims 11 and 18 limit the field of use by reciting a shipping station and a kiosk. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. See MPEP 2106.05(b). Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Remaining Claims:
With regards to Claims 2-3, 6-10, and 13-14, these claims merely add a degree of particularity to the limitations discussed above rather than adding additional elements capable of transforming the nature of the claimed subject matter. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements 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. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 11-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buettgenbach et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2002/0032613 A1), hereinafter Buettgenbach, in view of Dearlove et al. (U.S. 8,156,013 B2), hereinafter Dearlove.
Claim 1.
Buettgenbach discloses a method for managing the storage and shipment of a shopping bag, comprising the following steps:
Buettgenbach does not disclose the following limitation, but Dearlove does:
providing the shopping bag to a user, wherein the shopping bag comprises at least one flexible outer component(s) (Dearlove (Col. 10 Lines 18-20) customer’s tote is delivered; (Col. 10 Lines 33-50) tote may be a bag with flexible sides);
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a tote for retail products to a customer in order to make it easier to transport multiple retail products at once. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a tote as taught by Dearlove in the system of Buettgenbach, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in the art of shipping, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that only routine engineering would be required to incorporate the above features and yield predictable result of Buettgenbach’s system with the improved functionality to make it easier to transport multiple products at once on behalf of a single customer.
Buettgenbach, as modified above by Dearlove, teaches:
encoding said shopping bag with a symbol and associating that symbol with a record of a purchase of goods made by said user at a real-world retail location (Buettgenbach [0010], [0015] shipping label may be printed; [0060] scanning a barcode label such as a shipping label or a custom label that applied to the package);
Regarding the following limitation:
placing said goods within said shopping bag;
Buettgenbach discloses preparing items for shipping (Buettgenbach (Fig. 8 Item 840) prepare item for shipping). However, Buettgenbach does not disclose placing said goods within said shopping bag (Dearlove (Col. 10 Lines 25-29) customer has an item or items to be returned to the network enterprise, the customer may place the item or items in a tote to be picked up).
The known technique placing goods within a tote of Dearlove, as shown above, is applicable to the system of Buettgenbach as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are shipping retail goods. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of placing goods within a tote of Dearlove to the retail goods shipping of Buettgenbach would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Dearlove to the teaching of Buettgenbach would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such placing goods within a tote into retail goods shipping systems. Further, applying placing goods within a tote to Buettgenbach, would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more efficient transport of multiple goods at one time because they will share a single container.
Buettgenbach, as modified above by Dearlove, teaches:
pre-authorizing the storing and shipping of said shopping bag at a storage and shipping location (Buettgenbach [0060] barcode scanner identifies a delivery by scanning a barcode label such as a shipping label or a custom label that applied to the package and relating the reference returned from the barcode label to the appropriate record in a database; [0080] authorize a return);
wherein the symbol is scanned at the storage and shipping location, confirming the pre-authorization of the storing and shipping of the shopping bag at the storage and shipping location (Buettgenbach [0060] barcode scanner identifies a delivery by scanning a barcode label such as a shipping label or a custom label that applied to the package and relating the reference returned from the barcode label to the appropriate record in a database; [0084] reference appropriate file).
Claim 2.
Buettgenbach in view of Dearlove teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. However, Buettgenbach does not disclose the following limitation, but Dearlove does:
wherein the shopping bag is convertible, into a box-like shape, by folding the shopping bag along at least one of the flexible component(s) (Dearlove Fig. 4A showing a box shaped reusable tote with a resealable lid; (Col. 10 Lines 33-60) tote may be various shapes).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the teachings of Dearlove in the system of Buettgenbach for the same reasons discussed above in claim 1.
Claim 3.
Buettgenbach in view of Dearlove teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. However, Buettgenbach does not disclose the following limitation, but Dearlove does:
wherein said shopping bag comprises at least one carrying handle(s) (Dearlove (Col. 10 Lines 58-60) tote may include one or more handles).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the teachings of Dearlove in the system of Buettgenbach for the same reasons discussed above in claim 1.
Claim 4.
Buettgenbach in view of Dearlove teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Buettgenbach, as modified above by Dearlove, teaches:
wherein said user pre-authorizes said shipment of said shopping bag by a commercial shipping company (Buettgenbach [0091], [0103] payer can be the vendor, the buyer, or the returning party; [0059], [0074], [0106] shipping by common carrier).
Claim 5.
Buettgenbach in view of Dearlove teaches all the elements of claim 4, as shown above. Additionally, Buettgenbach, as modified above by Dearlove, teaches:
wherein a second user, who sold said goods to said user, pre-authorizes said shipment of said shopping bag by said commercial shipping company (Buettgenbach [0091], [0103] payer can be the vendor, the buyer, or the returning party; [0059], [0074], [0106] shipping by common carrier).
Claim 6.
Buettgenbach in view of Dearlove teaches all the elements of claim 3, as shown above. However, Buettgenbach does not disclose the following limitation, but Dearlove does:
wherein the at least one carrying handle(s) comprises at least two carrying handles (Dearlove (Col. 10 Lines 58-60) tote may include one or more handles).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the teachings of Dearlove in the system of Buettgenbach for the same reasons discussed above in claim 1.
Claim 11.
Buettgenbach in view of Dearlove teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Buettgenbach, as modified above by Dearlove, teaches:
providing a shipping facility at said storage and shipping location, wherein said shipping facility comprises a shipping station configured to accept said shopping bag for storage and shipping (Buettgenbach [0101] will call center performs partially automated shipping process; [0102] receive shipping information; [0103] estimate shipping charges and verify payment authorization; [0104] receive the package at the will call center; [0105] prepare the item for shipping; [0106] provide the package to the common carrier; [0107] bill for actual shipping charges; [0108] notify a user the package has been shipped).
Claim 12.
Buettgenbach in view of Dearlove teaches all the elements of claim 11, as shown above. Additionally, Buettgenbach, as modified above by Dearlove, teaches:
wherein said shipping facility comprises a conveyance device (Buettgenbach [0071], [0110] unlock storage boxes are electronically lockable).
Claim 13.
Buettgenbach in view of Dearlove teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Buettgenbach, as modified above by Dearlove, teaches:
wherein said storage and shipping location is located at least partially on or adjacent to the grounds of a shopping mall (Buettgenbach [0073] shopping mall).
Claim 14.
Buettgenbach in view of Dearlove teaches all the elements of claim 2, as shown above. Additionally, Buettgenbach, as modified above by Dearlove, teaches:
wherein said storage and shipping location comprises an opening with a shape complementary to, and able to accept, said shopping bag, when said shopping bag is converted into said box-like shape (Buettgenbach [0071], [0111] will call center includes at least one electrically lockable storage box for storing deliveries).
Claim 15.
Buettgenbach in view of Dearlove teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Buettgenbach, as modified above by Dearlove, teaches:
wherein at least a part of said shipping facility comprises at least part of a control system comprising computer hardware and a display (Buettgenbach [0034], [0039], [0049], [0059], [0061] computer system associated with the will-call center).
Claim 16.
Buettgenbach in view of Dearlove teaches all the elements of claim 15, as shown above. Additionally, Buettgenbach, as modified above by Dearlove, teaches:
wherein said control system executes a payment from a bank account owned by a retailer (Buettgenbach [0091] payer can be the vendor; [0103] authorization of payment).
Claim 17.
Buettgenbach discloses a system for managing the storage and shipment of a shopping bag, comprising:
Regarding the following limitation:
a shipping facility, provided at a storage and shipping location within or adjacent to a common area of a shopping mall, adapted to receive a plurality of shopping bags containing retail goods, store said plurality of shopping bags, and ship said shopping bags to a location selected by a user of said system;
Buettgenbach discloses a shipping facility, provided at a storage and shipping location within or about a common area of a shopping mall, adapted to receive retail goods, store said plurality of shopping bags, and ship said shopping bags to a location selected by a user of said system (Buettgenbach [0009] direct retail; [0073] shopping mall; [0101] will call center performs partially automated shipping process; [0102] receive shipping information; [0103] estimate shipping charges and verify payment authorization; [0104] receive the package at the will call center; [0105] prepare the item for shipping; [0106] provide the package to the common carrier; [0107] bill for actual shipping charges; [0108] notify a user the package has been shipped). However, Buettgenbach does not disclose a plurality of shopping bags containing retail goods, but Dearlove does (Dearlove (Col. 10 Lines 25-29) customer has an item or items to be returned to the network enterprise, the customer may place the item or items in a tote to be picked up; (Col. 10 Lines 33-50) tote may be a bag with flexible sides)
The known technique placing goods within a tote of Dearlove, as shown above, is applicable to the system of Buettgenbach as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are shipping retail goods. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of placing goods within a tote of Dearlove to the retail goods shipping of Buettgenbach would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Dearlove to the teaching of Buettgenbach would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such placing goods within a tote into retail goods shipping systems. Further, applying placing goods within a tote to Buettgenbach, would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more efficient transport of multiple goods at one time because they will share a single container.
Buettgenbach, as modified above by Dearlove, teaches:
a control system comprising computer hardware and a specialized display, adapted to confirm a pre-authorization of said receipt, storage and shipment of said shopping bag through specialized GUI tools and order said shipment to said location selected by a user of said system, with the aid of other GUI tools (Buettgenbach [0034], [0039], [0049], [0059], [0061] computer system associated with the will-call center; [0060] barcode scanner identifies a delivery by scanning a barcode label such as a shipping label or a custom label that applied to the package and relating the reference returned from the barcode label to the appropriate record in a database; [0080] authorize a return; [0096] web interface; [0101] will call center performs partially automated shipping process; [0102] receive shipping information; [0103] estimate shipping charges and verify payment authorization; [0104] receive the package at the will call center; [0105] prepare the item for shipping; [0106] provide the package to the common carrier; [0107] bill for actual shipping charges; [0108] notify a user the package has been shipped);
wherein said shopping bags originate from a plurality of retail stores within said shopping mall (Buettgenbach [0009] direct retail; [0073] shopping mall).
Claim 18.
Buettgenbach in view of Dearlove teaches all the elements of claim 17, as shown above. Additionally, Buettgenbach, as modified above by Dearlove, teaches:
a kiosk configured to return at least one of said plurality of shopping bags to said user, based on said user activating additional GUI tools (Buettgenbach [0071], [0111] store deliveries in a box that can be accessed without an attendant present; [0096] web interface).
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buettgenbach in view of Dearlove further in view of Tompkin et al. (U.S. 6,819,409 B1), hereinafter Tompkin.
Claim 7.
Buettgenbach in view of Dearlove teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. However, Buettgenbach does not disclose the following limitation, but Tompkin does:
wherein said symbol is at least partially symmetrical (Tompkin (Col. 7 Lines 51-54), (Col. 14 Lines 10-14) item information is arranged in the form of a palindrome).
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of the item information in the form of a palindrome of Tompkin for the barcode label of Buettgenbach. Both a palindrome and a barcode label are known in the art of scannable identifiers for identifying an item. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element in the art of scannable identifiers for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that only routine engineering would be required to substitute the above features and yield predictable result of Buettgenbach’s system with the improved functionality to reduce the risk the identifier is lost due to damage, as suggested by Tompkin (Tompkin (Col. 14 Lines 10-14)).
Claim 8.
Buettgenbach in view of Dearlove and Tompkin teaches all the elements of claim 7, as shown above. However, Buettgenbach does not disclose the following limitation, but Tompkin does:
wherein said symbol is palindromic (Tompkin (Col. 7 Lines 51-54), (Col. 14 Lines 10-14) item information is arranged in the form of a palindrome).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the teachings of Tompkin in the system of Buettgenbach for the same reasons discussed above in claim 7.
Claim 9.
Buettgenbach in view of Dearlove teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. However, Buettgenbach does not disclose the following limitation, but Tompkin does:
wherein said symbol comprises a plurality of curved, non-rectilinear and continuous lines (Tompkin (Col. 7 Lines 40-57) sequence includes 0s).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the teachings of Tompkin in the system of Buettgenbach for the same reasons discussed above in claim 7.
Claim 10.
Buettgenbach in view of Dearlove teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. However, Buettgenbach does not disclose the following limitation, but Tompkin does:
wherein said symbol comprises scan-initiating end anchors (Tompkin (Col. 7 Lines 43-57) start sequence and stop sequence).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the teachings of Tompkin in the system of Buettgenbach for the same reasons discussed above in claim 7.
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 SCOTT M TUNGATE whose telephone number is (571)431-0763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 - 4:30 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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SCOTT M TUNGATE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628