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 .
Applicant’s Reply
Applicant's response of 02/27/26 has been entered. The examiner will address applicant's remarks at the end of this office action. Currently claims 1-13, 15-17 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder (units configured to.., generator to) that is coupled with functional language reciting a function to be performed, without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In claim 1:
a determination unit configured to receive said report…and calculate population scores… and submitting the K to the contract generator
a contract generator configured to receive, and automatically generates a contract
For claim 2:
a messaging unit configured to automatically send….
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The corresponding structure is a computing device and an algorithm to perform the steps (the algorithm is what defines the abstract idea as far as steps/functions are concerned), and equivalents thereof. These claimed elements are not interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation.
In the reply of 02/26/26, the applicant confirmed that the above language was intended to be invoking 112f and it has been treated as invoking 112f as was previously set forth.
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.
Claims 17 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.
For claim 17, it is not clear what is meant by reciting the term “escalation in interaction”. It is not clear what this is and the specification does not provide any guidance as to what this is and what it means. This term does not appear to be a term of art in the real estate industry as best the examiner can determine. It is not clear what this language requires of the claim scope such that it renders the claim indefinite.
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 1-13, 15-17, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims recite a system, a method, and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium containing executable instructions; therefore, claims 1, 11, 17, pass step 1 of the eligibility analysis.
For step 2A, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of automatically renewing property lease contracts. This is claiming the concept of processing data for a lease contracts and affecting a lease renewal. The entering into a legal contract and the related activities for generating and finalizing the contract is a legal interaction that falls into the category of being a certain method of organizing human activities.
For claim 1 the abstract idea is defined by the elements of:
store units' occupancies, tenants' scores, and respective expiry date of each unit's contract;
periodically issue a report detailing N units' contracts that are expected to expire within a predefined future period Tf; and
submit a tenants' ranking, wherein said tenants' ranking details a weighted score to each tenant residing at a unit within said report;
evaluate applications for units' lease received at the firm within a predefined past period Tp, and issue a predicted applicants' ranking list for the future period Tf,
wherein said applicants' ranking list details a weighted score to each past applicant in the list; and
submit said applicants' ranking;
provide tenant likelihood of renewal; and
provide an unbiased tenant score;
a tenant demand model to provide a market model estimating demand;
receive said report, said tenants' ranking, and said applicants' ranking, and a number V of additional vacant units, and calculate population scores P for each number k, where k is a number between 0 to N; and
select from the highest population score P the respective k and define this specific k as K, and submit the K;
receive the number K, and based on data from the tenants and unit CRM, automatically generates a contract to the K top tenants appearing at the tenants' ranking list; and
a model providing an estimation of R - renewal acceptance rate and C - renewal conversion rate
For claim 11 the abstract idea is defined by the elements of:
a. receiving from a tenant CRM system a report indicating the number N of units in which tenant contracts are about to expire within a predefined future period Tf;
b. adding to this number, several units V already currently vacant;
c. based on tenants' scores given during each tenant's stay in a respective unit, sorting from best to worst all tenants currently staying in these N units;
d. for each number k between 1 to N, averaging the tenant scores, to obtain a series of tenant scores averages Q(k);
e. analyzing application forms received during a past predefined period Tp, and sorting the applicants' scores based on applicant quality predefined criteria;
f. averaging applicants' scores to receive M(g) for each possible number k=O,1,...N, where g=(N+V-R*k)/C, thereby obtaining a series of application scores averages M(g);
g. for each combination of tenants number k=(1 to N+V) determining M(g) (where g=(N+V-R*k)/C, and finding the respective value of the total population score P;
h. selecting the highest P=R*k*Q(k)+(N-R*k+V)*M((N-R*k+V)/C) from all calculated population scores P, and selecting a value of K, K is the value of k in the maximally selected population score P; and
i. automatically generating a renewed contract for each tenant appearing in the top K tenants in the sorted tenants' list, wherein C = a "conversion rate" is a constant between 0 and 1 measuring a probability of a new tenant with an approved application to sign a new lease contract presented to the tenant; and R = a "renewal acceptance rate" is a constant between 0 and 1, measuring the probability that an eligible tenant accepts a renewal contract presented to the tenant.
For claim 17 the abstract idea is defined by the elements of:
implement a renewal acceptance rate model that generates synthetic data and scenarios to simulate different renewal decisions,
predicts patterns of tenant acceptance or non-renewal, and provides a renewal acceptance rate parameter R,
implement a renewal conversion rate model that generates realistic profiles for a diverse range of applicants, simulates and predicts conversion rates by assessing how well applicants align with lease offerings, and provides a renewal conversion rate parameter C,
implement a generative Al model to compute final tenants' scores,
implement a predictive tenant demand model that estimates M(g) - the market input of the tenants' demands by analyzing historical data, local economic indicators, and demographic trends to predict future demand for rental properties,
simulating scenarios with respect to job market fluctuations, population growth, recession economic indicators, mortgage rates, neighboring properties vacancy, and prices; and
provides an anticipated tenant demand, and
implement a market estimator, which comprises:
a tenant renewal likelihood analysis model to analyze historical tenant data including payment history, past conversations, indicated renewal or moveout intent, and escalation in interaction, and predicts individual tenant likelihood for lease renewal,
wherein the tenant renewal likelihood analysis model also provides an applicant ranking, and
implement a model for unbiased evaluation of existing tenants to provide an objective quality assessment for unbiased evaluation of existing tenants aiding in optimal lease renewal decisions
The above limitations are reciting a process of analyzing data for rental property leases and tenants, as well as other information, and determining a likelihood of a tenant renewing a lease, and that includes generation of the contract. This is claiming a concept of real estate management and is a certain method of organizing human activities type of abstract idea. As is set forth in the specification, it is known that people in the form of property managers manage properties for lease and they have to replace tenants with new ones and/or provide for a current tenant to renew their lease. This is a fundamental economic practice that is reciting a contractual obligation (legal interaction) in the form of a lease renewal. For this reason the claims are considered to be reciting an abstract idea that is a certain method of organizing human activities. Also, the claimed process as far as collecting data and analyzing the data can be performed by a person, including mentally because at the core of the invention are math equations that are used to calculate numbers. While a claim that involves math does not necessarily trigger a mathematical relationship type of abstract idea interpretation because many non-abstract ideas may involve math, the pending claims are reciting steps and calculations that can be done by a person mentally, including with the use of pen and paper, and the result of the claim does not serve to improve technology in any manner. The claimed abstract idea can also be performed mentally by a person who is analyzing the data to make the claimed determinations/calculations. For these reasons the claims are found to be reciting an abstract idea at step 2A.
For claim 1, the additional elements of the claim are the claimed tenant and unit CRM system, an applicant’s CRM system, the determination unit (invoking 112f), the contract generator (invoking 112f) and claiming that the output of the scoring model as being based at least in part on a machine learning or artificial intelligence algorithm.
For claim 11, the additional elements of the claim is the recitation to at least one of C and R (that are part of the abstract idea) are generated using machine learning or artificial intelligence algorithms.
For claim 17, the additional elements are the claimed computer program product (non-transitory CRM) that includes computer program(s) to perform the steps that define the abstract idea, and the use of the claimed generative AI model(s) for some of the steps that are part of the abstract idea.
For claims 1, 11, 17, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A) because the additional elements of the claim when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole, amount to the use of a computing device (with a program) and the use of machine learning (artificial intelligence) models, or the generative AI models of claim 17, that are being used as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited computing device (the claimed CRM, determination unit, contract generator), and the use of machine learning to perform steps that define the abstract idea, (generative AI of claim 17). This does not amount to more than a mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) connected via a network. The use of generative AI (and/or ML) that requires a computer is also taken as a general link to a particular technological environment that is the general filed of machine learning and/or artificial intelligence. This is not sufficient to provide for integration or significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(f),(h). This is just instructing one to use a computer that can run artificial intelligence (generative AI) models to perform the steps that defines the abstract idea. The claimed use of AI or ML is recited at a high level of generality and is just an instruction for one to use AI or ML for execution of a step(s) that is part of the abstract idea. The combination of the recitation to a computer (including via 112f invocation or via the claimed programming of claim 17) and the use of artificial intelligence or generative AI, when viewed with the claim as a whole, does not amount to more than instructing one to “apply it” with machine learning or artificial intelligence. The above is indicative of the fact that the claims have not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application and therefore the claims is/are found to be directed to the abstract idea identified by the examiner.
For claims 1, 11, 17, and for step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole because the additional elements of the claim when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole, amount to the use of a computing device (with a program) and the use of machine learning (artificial intelligence) models, or the generative AI models of claim 17, that are being used as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited computing device (the claimed CRM, determination unit, contract generator), and the use of machine learning to perform steps that define the abstract idea, (generative AI of claim 17). This does not amount to more than a mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) connected via a network. The use of generative AI (and/or ML) that requires a computer is also taken as a general link to a particular technological environment that is the general filed of machine learning and/or artificial intelligence. This is not sufficient to provide for integration or significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(f),(h). This is just instructing one to use a computer that can run artificial intelligence (generative AI) models to perform the steps that defines the abstract idea. The claimed use of AI or ML is recited at a high level of generality and is just an instruction for one to use AI or ML for execution of a step(s) that is part of the abstract idea. The combination of the recitation to a computer (including via 112f invocation or via the claimed programming of claim 17) and the use of artificial intelligence or generative AI, when viewed with the claim as a whole, does not amount to more than instructing one to “apply it” with machine learning or artificial intelligence.
For the above reasons, claims 1, 11, 17 do not recite significantly more.
Claims 1, 11, 17, do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration into a practical application or that provide for significantly more at step 2B; therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 12-13, the claimed limitations are further defining the same abstract idea of claim 11. What the renewed contract is based on, and automatically sending each contract to a tenant, are limitations that are reciting more about the abstract idea of claim 11. All that is being claimed is a further embellishment of the abstract idea of claim 11. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 15, 16, deriving the unbiased tenant score, and determining the preferred tenant are all elements that are considered to be part of the abstract idea. A person can perform the recited functions, including mentally. One can mentally determine a score, and can mentally determine preferred tenants as claimed. These broadly recited functional elements are part of the abstract idea in terms of the analysis that is occurring in the claims, and that can be performed by people. However, the claims do recite an additional element that is considered to be the recitation to using ML or AI algorithms. As was stated for claim 11, the use of ML or AI is a general link to a particular technological environment that is the general field of machine learning or artificial intelligence. This is not sufficient to provide for integration or significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(f),(h). This is just instructing one to use a computer that can run AI models to perform the abstract idea. The claimed use of AI or ML is recited at a high level of generality and is just an instruction for one to use AI or ML. This is not something that amounts to more than instructing one to “apply it” with machine learning or artificial intelligence. This does not provide for integration into a practical application or significantly more. The claims are not found to be eligible.
For claim 2, the automatic sending of generated contracts to K tenants based on respective tenant addresses as claimed is a further recitation to the abstract idea. This is just sending a contract to another for review or for record keeping. The claim does recite an additional element of a messaging unit. This has been interpreted to be claiming a computer as the additional element, where the algorithm to perform the recited function is part of the abstract idea due to the invocation of 112f. This is taken as an instruction for one to use a computer to perform the steps that define the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(F), for the same reasons set forth for claim 1 and the recited units and generator. These elements do no more than to claim computer implementation for the abstract idea where the computer is being used as a tool to execute the abstract idea (or a step of the abstract idea).
For claims 3-5, the applicant is reciting the manner in which the population score P is being calculated. The claims are defining the equation used to determine the score and the variables used in the equation. These elements are all directed to the abstract idea of the claim. The calculation of the population score P is an element that is part of the abstract idea, as was set forth for claim 1. The claims do not recite any additional elements that would provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. All that is claimed is more about the abstract idea. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 6-8, the applicant is reciting more about the abstract idea. The use of a weighted score based on the claimed data such as a credit score or criminal report, and/or the number of late payments, and having the parameters predefined, are all elements that are part of the abstract idea. No additional elements have been claimed other than those required by virtue of claim 1. The claims do not recite any additional elements that would provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. All that is claimed is more about the abstract idea. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 9, 10, the claims do recite the additional elements of using AI or ML to perform the functions that are part of the abstract idea in terms of the tenant demand module being implemented in a market estimator module that is configured to use AI/ML. For the same reasons set forth for claims 1, the use of ML or AI is a general link to a particular technological environment that is the general field of machine learning or artificial intelligence. This is not sufficient to provide for integration or significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(f),(h). The claims do not recite any additional elements that would provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
Therefore, for the above reasons, claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to arguments
The comments about the invocation of 35 USC 112f is noted. The applicant agrees that the claims 1 and 2 contain recitations that are invoking 112f.
With respect to the 35 USC 112b rejections, the rejections have been overcome by the amendment to the claims, with the exception of the rejection of claim 17 being maintained. The amendments to the claims and the arguments are persuasive to overcome the rejections to claims 1, 8, 11and 17 with respect to the synthetic data and realistic profiles. For claim 17 and with respect to the issue of what is meant by reciting “an escalation in interaction”, this term is still considered to be indefinite. The applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the term means that there is more frequent interaction with a tenant. This is not persuasive. The argument is little more than a general allegation. The specification does not define this term and this is not a term of art from the real estate field that would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to mean more frequent interaction with the tenant. Other than a general allegation that the claim is definite, there is no showing that one of ordinary skill in the art understands what this term means or that it is known in the art. The argument is not persuasive.
The traversal of the 35 USC 101 rejection is not persuasive. The applicant argues that the claimed invention is improving the functioning of a computer on page 10 of the reply. The applicant argues that the claims includes features that improve the ability or a property manager firm to renew property lease contracts while limiting the exception to a narrowly drafted combination of elements that does not others from renewing property lease contracts. This is not persuasive. The claimed invention does not result in an improvement to any of the technology of the claim or to a computer as has been argued. The result of the claim is to affect the renewal of a lease and does not serve to improve technology in any manner. The field of renewing lease contracts by property management firms is not technology and even if this field is being improved, the innovation lies in the abstract idea itself.
With respect to the argument on pages 10-11 that the claims are narrow as a reason to find them eligible, the examiner notes that even narrowly drafted abstract ideas are still abstract ideas. In buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014), the court stated that "abstract ideas, no matter how groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant, are outside what the statute means by "new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter", and reference is made to Myriad by the court for this position. Also stated in buySAFE is "In defining the excluded categories, the Court has ruled that the exclusion applies if a claim involves a natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea, even if the particular natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea at issue is narrow. Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1303. The Court in Mayo rejected the contention that the very narrow scope of the natural law at issue was a reason to find patent eligibility, explaining the point with reference to both natural laws and one kind of abstract idea, namely, mathematical concepts. The argument that the claims are narrow so they allow for other ways to renew contracts is not persuasive. Narrowness does not equate to being eligible as a rule.
The applicant argues on page 11 that the claims are integrated into a practical application because they recite a CRM system, the use of AI or ML systems, and a computer readable medium is not persuasive. The claims are simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using computers that employ machine learning, where the computers and machine learning are being used as a tool to execute the abstract idea. This does not amount to integration into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
In further support of the argument that the claims are not generally reciting the use of AI/ML, the applicant argues that the use of AI/ML is for estimating the probability that a tenant will renew a lease and argues that this requires specific AI models to perform the recited functions (that are what defines the abstract idea). The applicant argues that the claims are not a general idea but are instead a focused use of AI/ML with recited inputs and outputs that results in the claims not being a monopoly on renewal of property leases. This is not persuasive. All that the applicant is arguing is that the use of AI/ML to determine a probability of a lease renewal renders the claims eligible. This is not persuasive for the reasons set forth in the rejection of record.
When considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole, amount to the use of a computing device (with a program) and the use of machine learning (artificial intelligence) models, or the generative AI models of claim 17, that are being used as a tool to execute the abstract idea does not render the claims as eligible, see MPEP 2106.05(f), (h). The use of generative AI (and/or ML) that requires a computer is also taken as a general link to a particular technological environment that is the general filed of machine learning and/or artificial intelligence. This is not sufficient to provide for integration or significantly more. Just because the applicant is using AI/ML in conjunction with the judicial exception does not automatically mean that the claims are eligible.
With respect to the argument about the claims not granting a monopoly to the applicant on lease renewals, the applicant is reminded that with respect to the issue of pre-emption and an argument that the claims are not pre-empting every way to perform the act of estimating lease renewal probabilities, in OIP Technologies v. Amazon.com, Inc. (Fed Cir. 2015) it was stated “And that the claims do not preempt all price optimization or may be limited to price optimization in the e-commerce setting do not make then any less abstract.” Reference was made to buySAFE in OIP for this finding. Pre-emption is not a standalone test for eligibility and the question of pre-emption is resolved by the two part framework from Alice and Mayo, as has been set forth by the CAFC in OIP and Sequenom. The USPTO eligibility guidelines also specifically make the point that a lack of complete pre-emption does not demonstrate that a claim is eligible. The argument is not persuasive.
On page 12 of the reply the applicant concedes that some of the aspects of claim 11 can be performed mentally. The applicant argues that the claims recite the use of AI/ML and that it precludes a human from performing the claimed invention by a mental process. This is not persuasive because the functions/steps that define the abstract idea can be performed by a person and the category for the abstract idea is that of being a certain method of organizing human activities. Additionally, the use of AI/ML in a claim does not preclude a finding that the claim recites a judicial exception because the use of AI/ML as is broadly claimed is considered to be an additional element that is the use of a computer that employs machine learning. The machine learning was not treated as being part of the abstract idea so the argument that the recitation to AI/ML means that the invention cannot be performed mentally is not persuasive, because the AI/ML is not part of the abstract idea. The argument is not persuasive.
On pages 12-13 the applicant argues the Desjardins decision and argues that the claims have been treated at too high of a level of generality and argues that the use of AI models to perform the recited steps renders the claims eligible. This is not persuasive for reasons already addressed. The examiner is not overgeneralizing the claimed invention and has given full weight to the use of AI in the claims. The use of AI or machine learning does not render the claims eligible.
With respect to the general allegation that eh claimed invention is not conventional or routine, this is not persuasive. The examiner has not taken the position that anything is well understood, routine, or conventional at step 2B because nothing has been found to be an insignificant extra solution activity at the 2nd prong. Examiners do not have to show or address how a claimed invention is considered well understood, routine, and conventional in a given field to find that the claims are not eligible. To do so would be injecting a prior art analysis into the eligibility inquiry. Something that is well understood, routine, and conventional is more than just known in the art, it means that something is more or less ubiquitous in a given field. The rejection of record does not find anything to be an insignificant extra solution activity at the 2nd prong so there is nothing to reassess at step 2B with respect to the issue of being well understood, routine, and conventional (the Berkheimer memo). The argument is not persuasive.
In summary, the examiner is following USPTO guidance on subject matter eligibility, is not overgeneralizing the claimed invention, and finds the claims to be ineligible for failure to recite integration into a practical application or significantly more. The 101 rejection is being maintained.
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 DENNIS WILLIAM RUHL whose telephone number is (571)272-6808. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3:30pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 5712703445. 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.
/DENNIS W RUHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights