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 .
Response to Amendment
In light of Applicant's submission filed June 8, 2026, the Examiner has maintained and updated the 35 USC § 101 and 103 rejections.
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 - 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following limitations that are considered to be abstract ideas:
Claims 1
Acquires and registers vehicle information
Determines a recommended maintenance window
determine a recommended maintenance window at of an engine oil based on a degree of deterioration of a engine oil, the degree of deterioration being determined from the vehicle state information by comparing a an oil deterioration parameter with a predetermined threshold station
Transmits maintenance information to a user of the leased vehicle
receive, a oil change completion notification including a vehicle identifier, an execution date and time of an oil change, an, and a travel distance of the vehicle at the time of oil change;
determine, based on the oil change completion notification, whether the oil change of the leased vehicle was performed within the recommended maintenance window at the predetermined station;
update a maintenance record for the leased vehicle included in the maintenance database in response to the determination that oil change of the leased vehicle was performed within the recommended maintenance window at the predetermined station; and
output information of a reward to the user when the determination is affirmative, the information of the reward being provided in a screen that is displayed on a display included in the information processing device.
The limitations of independent claim 1, as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely “advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors” because the claims disclose performing advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors comprising collecting information…, transmitting the information…, outputting rewards based on satisfying conditions. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claims recite the additional elements of processor, memory, database, wireless communication circuitry, terminal and display. The aforementioned additional generic computing elements perform the steps of the claims at a high level of generality (i.e. As a generic medium performing generic computer function of acquiring, register, determine, transmitting, updating, and outputting) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to
amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a processor, memory, database, wireless communication circuitry, terminal and display to acquiring, register, determine, transmitting, updating, and outputting amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. 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 the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to
significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
The dependent claims 2-7 appear to merely further limit the abstract and as such, the analysis of dependent claims 2-7 results in the claims “reciting” an abstract idea The claims the claims do not recited additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application the additional elements do not amount to an inventive concept (significantly more) other than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 1-7 are not patent eligible.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watkins et al. (US 2009/0177351) in view of Funkhouser et al. (2018/0025391) in further view of Schmitz et al. (US 2022/0012694) Claim 1: Watkins discloses an information processing device comprising: a processor; ([0016], processor) and a memory storing a vehicle database, and program instructions that cause the processor to [0017, 0018, 0040, 0041]
acquire vehicle information transmitted from an electronic control unit (ECU) of a leased vehicle via wireless communication circuitry, the vehicle information including vehicle state information that indicates at least one of diagnostic information and trip history; ([0042] VSM 290 monitors mobile vehicle 210 for vehicle system maintenance information. In one embodiment, VSM 290 determines an oil-life value based on the vehicle system maintenance information. In another embodiment, VSM 290 sends the vehicle system maintenance information to telematics device 220 for processing.[0047], Examples of vehicle system maintenance information include odometer information, diagnostic information, brake system information, fluid level information, fuel consumption information, pollution control system information, stability control system information, climate control system information, vehicle lighting system information, power train system information)
determine a recommended maintenance window of engine oil based on a degree of deterioration of the engine oil, the degree of deterioration being determined from the vehicle state information by comparing an oil deterioration parameter with a predetermined threshold; ([0048] At step 330, an oil-life value is determined based on the vehicle system maintenance information. In one embodiment, the oil-life value is a variable oil-life performance metric. In an example, the oil-life value is determined from several measured parameters including but not limited to vehicle type, engine type, application, and the like. The measured parameters are determined based upon measurements, such as, but not limited to viscosity, opacity, and the like. [0049] determination is made as to whether the oil-life value exceeds at least one oil-life threshold level. In one embodiment, determining when the oil-life value exceeds the oil-life threshold level includes comparing the determined oil-life value with the at least one oil-life threshold level, determining at least one oil-life threshold level that is exceeded by the oil-life value,)
transmit information including the recommended maintenance window via the wireless communication circuitry to a terminal associated with a user of the leased vehicle; [0054]. In one embodiment, a service center manages the delivery of service reminders based on the one or more oil-life threshold levels that are exceeded by the determined oil-life value as well as other service reminders that are generated as a result of the vehicle system maintenance information [0055], the service center sends service reminders to a telematics device within a mobile vehicle. In this embodiment, the mobile vehicle receives the service reminders and displays the service reminders for a client, such as, for example via a user interface. The client can then act on the provided service reminders. In an example and referring to FIG. 2 above, service center 270 sends service reminders to telematics device 220 within mobile vehicle 210. In this example, mobile vehicle 210 receives the service reminders and displays the service reminders for a client,) But does not explicitly disclose identify the vehicle is a leased vehicle; register the vehicle state information in a new entry of a vehicle record associated with the leased vehicle in the vehicle database; receive, from a predetermined station, an oil change completion notification including a vehicle identifier, an execution date and time of an oil change, and a travel distance of the vehicle at the time of the oil change;
determine, based on the oil change completion notification, whether the oil change of the leased vehicle was performed within the recommended maintenance window at the predetermined station;
update a maintenance record for the leased vehicle included in the maintenance database in response to the determination that the oil change of the leased vehicle was performed within the recommended maintenance window at the predetermined station; and
output information of a reward to the user when the determination is affirmative, the information of the reward being provided in a screen that is displayed on a display included in the information processing device. However Funkhouser discloses disclose identify the vehicle is a leased vehicle; ([0025], leased vehicle)
register the vehicle state information in a new entry of a vehicle record associated with the leased vehicle in the vehicle database; ([0017], vehicle registration)
determine, based on the oil change completion notification, whether the oil change of the leased vehicle was performed within the recommended maintenance window at the predetermined station; ([0025], if an oil change is a recommended service, an ownership score for a vehicle that was previously 94 may drop to a 93. The ownership score may drop at the time the vehicle owner is notified of the recommended service, or a period of time thereafter. Upon completion of the recommended service, the ownership score may return to a 94)
output information of a reward to the user when the determination is affirmative, the information of the reward being provided in a screen that is displayed on a display included in the information processing device. ([[025 and 0032], adjusting of a benefit or vehicle value based on timely maintenance and displays the oil change benefit to the user)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Watkins to discloses disclose identify the vehicle is a leased vehicle; register the vehicle state information in a new entry of a vehicle record associated with the leased vehicle in the vehicle database; determine, based on the oil change completion notification, whether the oil change of the leased vehicle was performed within the recommended maintenance window at the predetermined station; output information of a reward to the user when the determination is affirmative, the information of the reward being provided in a screen that is displayed on a display included in the information processing device, in order to motivate customers by incentivizing customers to do the recommended maintenance in a timely manner
Watkins and Funkhouser do not explicitly disclose receive, from a predetermined station, an oil change completion notification including a vehicle identifier, an execution date and time of an oil change, and a travel distance of the vehicle at the time of the oil change; update a maintenance record for the leased vehicle included in the maintenance database in response to the determination that the oil change of the leased vehicle was performed within the recommended maintenance window at the predetermined station;
However Schmitz discloses receive, from a predetermined station, an oil change completion notification including a vehicle identifier, an execution date and time of an oil change, and a travel distance of the vehicle at the time of the oil change; ([0027], The car service database 140 may store information related to what services have been performed for individual vehicles. The car mileage database 150 and car location database 160 may track information in real time about vehicle location and current mileage estimates based on driving habits of automobile owners.[0028] ehicle information may comprise year, make, model, trim, mileage, etc. The automobile owner may select whether they perform certain services, such as oil changes, based on mileage or time (e.g. every 3,000 miles or every 3 months). The entered information may be stored in the car manufacturer database, the car service database, and/or the car mileage database.)
update a maintenance record for the leased vehicle included in the maintenance database in response to the determination that the oil change of the leased vehicle was performed within the recommended maintenance window at the predetermined station; ([0027, 0028 and 0036], The automobile owner may select a link to schedule the service at a specific time with the service provider, and the automobile owner may take the automobile to the service provider for the service (step 650). The service provider may access the service record for the automobile and ask the automobile owner if they would like to complete any additional recommended services which have not yet been marked as completed. In response to the service being completed, the automobile owner or the service provider may indicate that the service was completed, and the system may update the service records in the databases)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Watkins to include receive, from a predetermined station, an oil change completion notification including a vehicle identifier, an execution date and time of an oil change, and a travel distance of the vehicle at the time of the oil change; update a maintenance record for the leased vehicle included in the maintenance database in response to the determination that the oil change of the leased vehicle was performed within the recommended maintenance window at the predetermined station, in order to motivate customers by incentivizing customers to do the recommended maintenance in a timely manner. ([0027] Funkhouser)
Claim 6: Watkins discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the oil deterioration parameter is a cumulative time during which an engine of the leased vehicle is operated such that at least one of an engine oil temperature is equal to or higher than a predetermined oil temperature; [0042-0044] or an engine speed is equal to or higher than a predetermined engine speed, and the program instructions further cause the processor to determine that the degree of deterioration of the engine oil exceeds the predetermined threshold when the cumulative time during which the engine is operated such that at least one of the engine oil temperature is equal to or higher than the predetermined oil temperature, or the engine speed is equal to or higher than the predetermined engine speed exceeds a deterioration time threshold set from when the engine oil was last replaced. [0042-0044, 0049-0051]
Claim 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watkins et al. (US 2009/0177351) in view of Funkhouser et al. (2018/0025391) in further view of Schmitz et al. (US 2022/0012694) Rivera et al. (US 2013/0054287) in further view of Nicholson (US 2019/0108524)
Claim 2: Watkins, Funkhouser, and Schmitz discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein
the recommended maintenance window includes a recommended date by which to perform the oil change is recommended at the predetermined station;
program instructions further cause the processor to increase of the reward the closer that a date on which the vehicle undergoes maintenance at the predetermined station is to the recommended date.
However Rivera discloses the recommended maintenance window includes a recommended date by which to perform the oil change is recommended at the predetermined station;[0029 and 0035]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Watkins, Funkhouser, and Schmitz to include the recommended maintenance window includes a recommended date by which to perform the oil change is recommended at the predetermined station, in order to provide convenience to the customer. (Rivera [0017])
Watkins, Funkhouser, and Schmitz and Rivera do not explicitly disclose program instructions further cause the processor to increase of the reward the closer that a date on which the vehicle undergoes the oil change at the predetermined station is to the recommended date.
However Nicholson discloses program instructions further cause the processor to increase of the reward the closer that a date on which the vehicle undergoes oil change at the predetermined station is to the recommended date. (see for example [0057])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Watkins, Funkhouser, and Schmitz and Rivera to include program instructions further cause the processor to increase of the reward the closer that a date on which the vehicle undergoes maintenance at the predetermined station is to the recommended date, in order to motivate customers to save money by maintaining maintenance. ([0057]. Nicholson)
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watkins et al. (US 2009/0177351) in view of Funkhouser et al. (2018/0025391) in further view of Schmitz et al. (US 2022/0012694) in further view of Nicholson (US 2019/0108524)
Claim 3: Watkins, Funkhouser, and Schmitz discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the program instructions further cause the processor to record a count of times the vehicle undergoes maintenance at the predetermined station, within the recommended time period, maintenance window, and increase the reward as the recorded count.
However Nicholson discloses wherein the program instructions further cause the processor to record a count of times the vehicle undergoes maintenance at the predetermined station, within the recommended time period, maintenance window, and increase the reward as the recorded count. ([0115])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Watkins, Funkhouser, and Schmitz a to include wherein the program instructions further cause the processor to record a count of times the vehicle undergoes maintenance at the predetermined station, within the recommended time period, maintenance window, and increase the reward as the recorded count of times the leased vehicle undergoes maintenance increase., in order to motivate customers by increasing the number of times to return to the station to receive a reward.
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watkins et al. (US 2009/0177351) in view of Funkhouser et al. (2018/0025391) in further view of Schmitz et al. (US 2022/0012694) in further view of IM et al. (US 2021/0201598) Claim 4: Watkins, Funkhouser, and Schmitz discloses the information processing device according to claim 1,the vehicle state information includes diagnostic information, ([0007], Zhang)but does not explicitly disclose the program instructions further cause the processor to determine the degree of deterioration from the vehicle state information using diagnostic information output by the ECU; and set the recommended maintenance window in response to the degree of deterioration exceeding the predetermined threshold.
However IM discloses the program instructions further cause the processor to determine the degree of deterioration from the vehicle state information using diagnostic information output by the ECU;[0013, 0014, and 0018] and set the recommended maintenance window in response to the degree of deterioration exceeding the predetermined threshold. [0099, 0100, 0103] and Fig 10)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Watkins, Funkhouser, and Schmitz to include the program instructions further cause the processor to determine the degree of deterioration from the vehicle state information using diagnostic information output by the ECU; and set the recommended maintenance window in response to the degree of deterioration exceeding the predetermined threshold, in order to motivate customers to do preventative maintenance. (IM abstract)
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watkins et al. (US 2009/0177351) in view of Funkhouser et al. (2018/0025391) in further view of Schmitz et al. (US 2022/0012694) in view of Capriotti et al. (US 2013/0325541)
Claim 5: Watkins, Funkhouser, and Schmitz discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the maintenance completion notification further includes a station identifier; and the program instructions further cause the processor to verify that the notification originates from the predetermined station by matching the station identifier, and reject reward output when the execution date and time are outside the recommended maintenance window.
However Capriotti discloses the maintenance completion notification further includes a station identifier; and the program instructions further cause the processor to verify that the notification originates from the predetermined station by matching the station identifier, and reject reward output when the execution date and time are outside the recommended maintenance window. ([0018, 0057]) Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Watkins, Funkhouser, and Schmitz to include the maintenance completion notification further includes a station identifier; and the program instructions further cause the processor to verify that the notification originates from the predetermined station by matching the station identifier, and reject reward output when the execution date and time are outside the recommended maintenance window in order to facilitate the vehicle owner's ability to maintain the vehicle by recording statistics from the vehicle and taking the vehicle for maintenance at the recommended times ([0015], Capriotti)
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watkins et al. (US 2009/0177351) in view of Funkhouser et al. (2018/0025391) in further view of Schmitz et al. (US 2022/0012694) in view of Bidner et al. (US 2013/0192545)
Claim 7: Watkins, Funkhouser, and Schmitz discloses information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the program instructions further cause the processor to determine that the degree of deterioration of the engine oil exceeds the predetermined threshold when an oil pressure in the engine is below a predetermined oil pressure, an engine oil temperature is within a predetermined temperature range, and an engine speed is within a predetermined speed range. However Bidner discloses wherein the program instructions further cause the processor to determine that the degree of deterioration of the engine oil exceeds the predetermined threshold when an oil pressure in the engine is below a predetermined oil pressure, an engine oil temperature is within a predetermined temperature range, and an engine speed is within a predetermined speed range. ([0044-0050 and 0060]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Watkins, Funkhouser, and Schmitz to include wherein the program instructions further cause the processor to determine that the degree of deterioration of the engine oil exceeds the predetermined threshold when an oil pressure in the engine is below a predetermined oil pressure, an engine oil temperature is within a predetermined temperature range, and an engine speed is within a predetermined speed range., order to control temperature/speed conditions when evaluating oil deterioration from pressure to improve diagnostic accuracy and avoid false deterioration determinations. ([0044-0046], Bidner)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues the 101 rejection by stating, “ The Applicant submits that, as amended, claim 1 is directed to a specific, technological process in which ECU-generated diagnostic information is used with server-side database operations to compute and enforce a maintenance window for changing engine oil, and then gate reward output only upon receipt and verification of a structured, station-originated oil change completion message containing vehicle ID, the oil change date/time, and the travel distance at the time of the oil change. These features do not relate to an abstract organization of human activity. Instead, the features relate to a specific improvement to vehicle maintenance management systems, because (i) the maintenance window for changing the engine oil is computed from measured component deterioration (a technical condition), (ii) the completion of the oil change is verified based on the station-originated data including specific identifiers and time fields, and (iii) the database records are updated to prevent duplicate credit and enforce technical criteria before a reward is output..” The Examiner respectfully disagrees, the applicant’s claims are directed to incentivizing leased vehicle users to service said vehicle at recommended times. Which is considered commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). See MPEP 2106.05(a) - An example of a claim reciting advertising is found in Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 714-15, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1753-54 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Ultramercial claimed an eleven-step method for displaying an advertisement (ad) in exchange for access to copyrighted media, comprising steps of receiving copyrighted media, selecting an ad, offering the media in exchange for watching the selected ad, displaying the ad, allowing the consumer access to the media, and receiving payment from the sponsor of the ad. 772 F.3d. at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754. The Federal Circuit determined that the "combination of steps recites an abstraction—an idea, having no particular concrete or tangible form" and thus was directed to an abstract idea, which the court described as "using advertising as an exchange or currency." Id. The applicant’s claims are similar in concept of performing an action in exchange for an incentive. Furthermore merely having a specific technological process is insufficient as evidence of an indication that the limitations are indicative of integration into a practical application. Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Thus the 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 have been considered but are moot due to the updated rejection above.
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 DARNELL A POUNCIL whose telephone number is (571)270-3509. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 - 6:00.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached at (571) 270-7537. 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.
/D.A.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3622
/ILANA L SPAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights