Detailed Office 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 Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed 08/14/2025. The applicant has amended claims 1, 3, and 4. Applicant has canceled Claim 2. Claims 1 and 3-4 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/07/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 08/14/2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-4 remain pending in the application.
Reply to Applicant’s Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed 08/14/2025 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 101:
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 08/14/2025 have not overcome the 35 U.S.C 101 rejections previously set forth. Regarding the Applicant’s argument that amended Claim 1 amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea itself, and is a practical application of the presently claimed invention, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Because the claims only recite mental processes, insignificant extra solution activities, and “apply it” type limitations, there are no additional elements that can provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
However, regarding the applicant's argument that similar to Core Wireless, the applicant's invention provides an improved user interface that displays an application summary of an unlaunched application and when selected summary information is selected, the respective unlaunched application is launched, the Examiner finds the argument persuasive. However, due to the current amended claim language of Claim 1, the examiner does not withdraw the 101 rejection due to the lack of a final display or launching step in response to one of the travel routes from the travel route summary being selected. For example, in the current amended claims, in response to the selection, only an “allocation” step occurs, which does not satisfy the conditions presented in the Core Wireless decision: "…where the particular data in the summary is selectable by a user to launch the respective application".
An inclusion of such a display or launching step may put the claim in position for a withdraw of the 101 rejection. For example “....in response to the selection, allocate and display the route for the shared-ride vehicle of the plurality of shared-ride vehicles for the selected travel route”.
See below for detailed rejection.
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 103:
Applicant’s arguments, see Arguments/Remarks, filed 08/14/2025, with regard to the rejections of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art reference(s).
See below for detailed rejection.
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 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis of the claims’ subject matter eligibility will follow the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (January 7, 2019) (“2019 PEG”).
101 Analysis - With respect to Claim 1
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis - Step 1:
Claim 1 is directed towards a system which is directed to the statutory category of a machine. Therefore Claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis- Step 2A Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental process.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites, inter alai:
“A vehicle operation management system comprising:
a user terminal carried by each passenger of a plurality of passengers requesting a shared- ride vehicle;
a vehicle terminal carried by a driver of each of a plurality of shared-ride vehicles;
an operator terminal used by operators at offices that operate each of the plurality of shared- ride vehicles and are remote from the vehicle terminal and the user terminal; and
a server connected via a communication network to the user terminal, the vehicle terminal and the operator terminal,
the server having a processor configured to: determine candidates for travel routes based on a boarding request including boarding location information, alighting location information, and boarding time or alighting time transmitted from [[a]] the plurality of passengers, and vehicle location information based on a detected current location of the vehicle terminal of the plurality of shared-ride vehicles,
calculate the arrival time and departure time at each transit point on the travel routes for each shared-ride vehicle operating on each travel route,
calculate a score for each of the candidates for travel routes from a weighted addition of passenger scores and operator scores,
evaluate each candidate for travel routes based on the score,
display each candidate for travel routes based on the score in order with the travel route having a best score first in the order,
receive a selection indicative of a selected travel route from each of the candidates for travel routes, and
in response to the selection, allocate the shared-ride vehicle of the plurality of shared- ride vehicles for the selected travel route.”
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind.
For example, “determining”, “calculating”, “evaluating”, and “allocating” in the context of this claim, all encompass a person looking at available data and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either manually or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
As drafted, the above claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), that are merely completed via generic computer components. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
Regarding Prong Two of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Claim 1 recites, inter alai:
“A vehicle operation management system comprising:
a user terminal carried by each passenger of a plurality of passengers requesting a shared- ride vehicle;
a vehicle terminal carried by a driver of each of a plurality of shared-ride vehicles;
an operator terminal used by operators at offices that operate each of the plurality of shared- ride vehicles and are remote from the vehicle terminal and the user terminal; and
a server connected via a communication network to the user terminal, the vehicle terminal and the operator terminal,
the server having a processor configured to: determine candidates for travel routes based on a boarding request including boarding location information, alighting location information, and boarding time or alighting time transmitted from [[a]] the plurality of passengers, and vehicle location information based on a detected current location of the vehicle terminal of the plurality of shared-ride vehicles,
calculate the arrival time and departure time at each transit point on the travel routes for each shared-ride vehicle operating on each travel route,
calculate a score for each of the candidates for travel routes from a weighted addition of passenger scores and operator scores,
evaluate each candidate for travel routes based on the score,
display each candidate for travel routes based on the score in order with the travel route having a best score first in the order,
receive a selection indicative of a selected travel route from each of the candidates for travel routes, and
in response to the selection, allocate the shared-ride vehicle of the plurality of shared- ride vehicles for the selected travel route.”
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “a user terminal …”, “a vehicle terminal…”, “an operator terminal…” and “a server connected via a communication network to the user terminal, the vehicle terminal and the operator terminal”, these limitations merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
Regarding the additional limitation of “display each candidate …” and “receive a selection indicative of a selected travel route …”, these limitations merely describes the sending, receiving, and display of data which are insignificant extra solution activities. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the act of collecting data and displaying data amounts to no more than merely storing and displaying information of the exception and thus is an extra-solution activity. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 3 and 4, no claim further adds a limitation that introduces any practical applications to the claimed invention, the dependent claims merely add more mental process, mathematical concepts, and post-solution activities and are thus not patent eligible.
Therefore, Claims 1 and 3-4 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srinivasan et al (US 20220128370 A1) in view of Ogden et al (WO 2019118801 A1). Hereafter referred to as Srinivasan and Ogden respectively.
Regarding Claim 1, Srinivasan teaches a vehicle operation management system (see at least Srinivasan [Abstract, ¶ 61, 84] Systems and methods of configuring and using a machine-learned safety risk model to predict a corresponding risk of vehicular collision for different candidate routes are disclosed herein…and then evaluates one or more routing algorithms by generating a corresponding set of routes for each routing algorithm and generating a corresponding performance measurement for each set of routes using the trained safety risk model…the candidate route may be selected from the plurality of candidate routes by determining a final score for each candidate route based on a plurality of parameters (e.g., fastest route, shortest route, most scenic route) including the safety risk score, and then selecting the candidate route with the highest final score)
comprising:
a user terminal carried by each passenger of a plurality of passengers requesting a shared- ride vehicle (see at least Srinivasan [¶ 25] the requester 110 operates a client device 112 that executes a requester application 114 that communicates with the networked computer system 100….The requester 110 operates the requester application 114 to view information about the networked computer system 100, and to make a request for service from the networked computer system 100 for a delivery or transport service (“a trip”) of the requester 110)
a vehicle terminal carried by a driver of each of a plurality of shared-ride vehicles (see at least Srinivasan [¶ 28, 31] the networked computer system 100 sends an invitation message to the provider client device 122 inviting the provider 120 to fulfill the trip request….0031] The provider 120 operates a client device 122 executing a provider application 124 that communicates with the networked computer system 100 to provide information indicating whether the provider 120 is available or unavailable to provide transportation services to requesters 110)
a server connected via a communication network to the user terminal, the vehicle terminal and the operator terminal (see at least Srinivasan [¶ 27, 98] one or more computer systems (e.g., a standalone, client or server computer system) or one or more processors may be configured by software (e.g., an application or application portion) as a hardware-implemented module that operates to perform certain operations as described herein....The network 130 may be any network that enables communication between or among machines, databases, and devices)
the server having a processor configured to: determine candidates for travel routes (see at least Srinivasan [¶ 57, 83] the networked computer system 100 identified the route by generating a plurality of candidate routes from the starting geographic location to the destination geographic location, and then selecting one of the plurality of candidate routes using the trained safety risk model)
based on
a boarding request including boarding location information, alighting location information (see at least Srinivasan [¶ 59-60] the service module 106 is configured to receive a request for a route 210 from a starting geographic location 220 to a destination geographic location 230…the selection module 104 is configured to generate a plurality of candidate routes from the starting geographic location 220 to the destination geographic location 230)
and boarding time or alighting time transmitted from the plurality of passengers (see at least Srinivasan [¶ 19, 43] The present disclosure provides technical solutions for configuring and using a machine-learned safety risk model to predict a corresponding risk of vehicular collision for different candidate routes… a technical solution involves training a safety risk model using accident data and feature data of historical routes as training data in a machine learning process…The accident data may also be associated with the request corresponding to the trip from the starting geographic location 220 to the destination geographic location 230 based on the underlying accident occurring between the time at which the provider 120 accepts the invitation message to service the trip request for the requester 110 and the time at which the provider 120 picks up the requester 110, such as the time at which the provider 120 has started transporting the requester 110, which may be indicated by the provider 120 providing an electronic signal that the provider 120 has started transporting the requester 110) The time between the provider picks up the requester to the time at which the provider has started transporting the requester is a boarding time, this boarding time is represented in Accident Data that is being used to evaluate and select candidate routes based on a score
and vehicle location information based on a detected current location of the vehicle terminal of the plurality of shared-ride vehicles (see at least Srinivasa [¶ 34, 28] the networked computer system 100 receives information (e.g., periodically) from the provider application 124 indicating the location of the provider's vehicle and/or telematics information (e.g., indications of current speed, acceleration/deceleration, events, stops, and so forth)…in response to receiving a trip request, the networked computer system 100 determines the average estimated time of arrival (ETA) at the pick-up location of providers 120 whose current location are within a threshold distance of the pick-up location (e.g., providers 120 who are all within one mile of the pickup location). In some embodiments, in response to determining that the requester's ETA at the pick-up location is within a threshold amount of time of the average ETA of nearby available providers 120, the networked computer system 100 uses information from the trip request to match the requester 110 with an available provider 120)
calculate the arrival time and departure time at each transit point on the travel routes for each shared-ride vehicle operating on each travel route (see at least Srinivasan [¶ 26,46] the requester 110 may launch the requester application 114 and specify an origin location and/or a destination location to view information from the networked computer system 100 before making a decision on whether to request service. The requester 110 may want to view information about the average or estimated time of arrival for pick up by the provider 120, an estimated time to the destination... The GUI 500 may also display supplemental information, such as an identification 530 of a requester 110 to be dropped off by the provider 120 and an indication 540 of the amount of time until the provider 120 or the client device 122 of the provider 120 arrives at the drop-off location)
calculate a score for each of the candidates for travel routes from a weighted addition of passenger scores and operator scores (see at least Srinivasan [¶ 63] the safety risk score may additionally or alternatively comprise or be based on other measures as well, including, but not limited to, a measure of insurance claim frequency (e.g., how often insurance claims have been submitted), a measure of insurance claim severity (e.g., how severe have the insurance claims been), rates of feedback from other parties (e.g., riders) about dangerous driving (e.g., how often have complaints about driving been submitted), rates of driving behaviors measured using telematics data, and rates of other types of safety incidents. The safety risk score may comprise a weighted combination of multiple measures of the types mentioned above or others) Rates of feedback from other parties (e.g. riders) is analogous to a passenger score and rates of driving behaviors measured using telemetric data gathered by the provider (an operator of the service) is analogous to an operator score
evaluate each candidate for travel routes based on the score (see at least Srinivasa [¶ 60-62] the selection module 104 is configured to select one of the plurality of candidate routes using the trained safety risk model. The selection module 104 may select the candidate route from the plurality of candidate routes by generating a corresponding safety risk score for each one of the plurality of candidate routes using the trained safety risk model, and then selecting the candidate route from the plurality of candidate routes based at least in part on the corresponding safety risk score for the selected candidate route).
However, Srinivasan does not explicitly teach an operator terminal used by operators at offices that operate each of the plurality of shared-ride vehicles and are remote from the vehicle terminal and the user terminal.
Ogden, in the same field as the endeavor, teaches an operator terminal used by operators at offices that operate each of the plurality of shared-ride vehicles and are remote from the vehicle terminal and the user terminal (see at least Ogden [¶ 33] The communication system 100 also includes a third-party provider device 106 (which operates independently and separately from the server device 104) that may be configured to communicate with the client computing device 102 and the server device 104 for the purposes of providing ride service functionality. The client computing device 102, the server device 104, and the third-party provider device 106 may be communicatively connected to each other through a network 108. The network 108 may be a public network, such as the Internet, or a private network such as an intranet).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system set forth in Srinivasan to contain an operator terminal used by operators at offices that operate each of the plurality of shared-ride vehicles and are remote from the vehicle terminal and the user terminal with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification for benefit of improving the flexibility of the ride service by including a method for providing and operating a third part ride share service as discussed in Ogden.
Further, Srinivasan does not explicitly teach a processor configured to display each candidate for travel routes based on the score in order with the travel route having a best score first in the order, receive a selection indicative of a selected travel route from each of the candidates for travel routes
and in response to the selection, allocate the shared-ride vehicle of the plurality of shared- ride vehicles for the selected travel route.
Ogden, in the same field as the endeavor, teaches a processor configured to display each candidate for travel routes based on the score in order with the travel route having a best score first in the order, receive a selection indicative of a selected travel route from each of the candidates for travel routes (see at least Ogden [¶ 75-77] The routes may then be ranked in order of their respective scores to minimize cost, time, and/or distance…indications of each of the top three highest ranking routes may be provided in a region of the map display…and the user may choose one of the routes by touch-selecting an indication of a recommended route)
and in response to the selection, allocate the shared-ride vehicle of the plurality of shared- ride vehicles for the selected travel route (see at least Ogden [¶ 77, 86, 90] the mapping application 128 displays three routes, where a first route includes ordering a taxi ride service provided by Rider from the starting location (e.g., the user’s current location) to a train station, taking a train from a first train stop to a second train stop, and walking to the destination location...the mapping application 128 receives a selection of a ride service provider and a ride service type. For example, the user may select a carpooling service named RiderPool from Rider by touch- selecting a user control, such as the RiderPool icon or a “Select RiderPool” button. As a result, the mapping application 128 presents a pick-up request display that includes a user control for selecting a pick-up location, similar to the display as shown in Fig. 12A. The user control may be a pin or other icon which is placed at a default pick-up location on the map display. For example, the default pick-up location may be the user’s current location or may be a recommended pick-up location....Accordingly, the mapping application 128 identifies the pick-up location for the ride as the position of the user control for selecting a pick-up location when the confirmation user control is selected. At block 912, the mapping application 128 invokes the ride service API 208 to provide a pick-up request to the ride service provider along with the selected ride service type and pick-up location).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system set forth in Srinivasan to contain a processor configured to display each candidate for travel routes based on the score in order with the travel route having a best score first in the order, receive a selection indicative of a selected travel route from each of the candidates for travel routes and in response to the selection, allocate the shared-ride vehicle of the plurality of shared- ride vehicles for the selected travel route with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification for benefit of improving the user experience and user convivence by providing a method for selecting a ranked route that in turn completes the proper steps to reserve and signal a pick up from a ride service.
Regarding Claim 3, Srinivasan in view of Ogden teaches all limitations of Claim 1 as set forth above. Srinivasan further teaches wherein the processor is configured to present the selected travel route to a terminal owned by the passenger, and, in response to the passenger confirming a reservation for one of the travel routes, reflects the reservation in reservation data (see at least Srinivasan [¶ 93, 131, 28] the networked computer system 100 may cause the display of the first performance measurement in association with the first routing algorithm…the transmitting of the identified route to the computing device comprises causing the identified route to be displayed within a user interface on the computing device...Once the requester 110 confirms or orders a service via the requester application 114, the requester application 114 generates data corresponding to a request for the service through the networked computer system 100 (e.g., also referred to herein as a “trip request”)).
Regarding Claim 4, Srinivasan in view of Ogden teaches all limitations of Claim 3 as set forth above. Srinivasan further teaches wherein the processor is configured to generate an operation plan based on the reservation data (see at least Srinivasan [¶ 28] Once the requester 110 confirms or orders a service via the requester application 114, the requester application 114 generates data corresponding to a request for the service through the networked computer system 100 (e.g., also referred to herein as a “trip request”)…the networked computer system 100 determines the average estimated time of arrival (ETA) at the pick-up location of providers 120 whose current location are within a threshold distance of the pick-up location (e.g., providers 120 who are all within one mile of the pickup location). In some embodiments, in response to determining that the requester's ETA at the pick-up location is within a threshold amount of time of the average ETA of nearby available providers 120, the networked computer system 100 uses information from the trip request to match the requester 110 with an available provider 120).
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 JOSEPH A YANOSKA whose telephone number is (703)756-5891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am to 5:00pm (Pacific Time).
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/JOSEPH ANDERSON YANOSKA/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664