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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response to Office action was received on August 19, 2025.
In response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, the corresponding prior art claim rejections, from the previous Office action, have been correspondingly amended, below in this Office action.
In response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, the corresponding 101 claim rejections, from the previous Office action, have been correspondingly amended, below in this Office action. Note that some of the claims no longer have rejections under 101.
101 Note: Claims 3, 10, and 17 no longer have 101 Alice-type rejections. This is because the ordered combination of limitations collects data about particular devices in the overall system (including GPS coordinates for the driver computing device) and is able to make a real-world determination of pick-up based on such combination of detected data. This at least provides advantages in terms of monitoring and tracking, meaningfully involves the additional elements beyond the judicial exception, and has some aspects of the BASCOM decision in terms of the use of a particular configuration.
Regarding the 101 rejections, Applicant argues based on the Core Wireless decision. Examiner disagrees. In Core Wireless, a particular beneficial feature with respect to computer interface technology itself was recognized. Applicant appears to be arguing that simply providing particular data content to two particular devices (that of the authorizing user and the passenger) is comparable, but, in the era of the Internet, all kinds of data are commonly provided to multiple recipients over a network. Therefore, Examiner sees this feature as mere generic computing system element and not helpful for eligibility.
Applicant further argues 101 with respect to the medical records USPTO 101 example (Example 42, Claim 1). Examiner disagrees. In the PTO example, the format standardization for beneficial sharing across formats was veiwed as a technological or computing improvement. In contrast, as Examiner discussed above, Applicant’s transmission of particular data content to multiple recipients amounts to generic computing and not a technological or computing improvement as of Applicant’s priority date.
Examiner believes that the amendments to the prior art rejections, below in this Office action, render Applicant’s arguments concerning the prior art rejections to be not applicable.
Information Disclosure Statement
Examiner notes that Applicant has cited USPTO Office action(s) in Applicant’s recent information disclosure statement(s). Please note that a reference cited in such USPTO Office action has not necessarily been considered unless separately cited on an information disclosure statement.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15, Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 recite(s):
- receiving a transportation request from an authorizing user to transport a passenger from a pickup location to a destination location;
- outputting, to a driver, navigation instructions to fulfill the transportation request and transport the passenger from the pickup location to the destination location;
- in response to detecting a first transportation fulfillment stage of the transportation request, providing, for output, a first set of shared digital transportation information to the authorizing user and the passenger, wherein the first set of shared digital transportation information comprises a unified notification across the authorizing user and the passenger indicating that the passenger has been picked up;
- in response to detecting a second transportation fulfillment stage of the transportation request, providing, for output, a second set of shared digital transportation information to the authorizing user and the passenger, wherein the second set of shared digital transportation information comprises a unified map or a unified drop off notification across the authorizing user and the passenger.
Each of the above limitations falls within the abstract-idea category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity.” Specifically, those limitations relate to the following subject matter that is grouped into the category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity”:
- commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations): relates to passenger transportation service, which is commonly a commercial activity;
- managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions): manages interactions between an authorizing user, a passenger, and a driver, each of which may be people.
To the extent that any of these limitations are recited alongside recitations of generic computer components, as described below in this rejection: If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers subject matter recognized as certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the following additional elements/limitations, each of which are addressed in the list below with the reason(s) why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
- computer-implemented; one or more servers; transmitted; computing devices; outputting via transmitting; outputting via displaying; user interfaces; interface; a system comprising: at least one processor; and at least one non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system; a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions thereon that, when executed by at least one processor device, cause the at least one processor device: These element(s)/limitation(s) amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In making this determination, examiners may consider whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Mere instructions to apply an exception is a consideration with respect to both integration of an abstract idea into a practical application and significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states: “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).” This is the case with these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s). Those elements/limitations do not meaningfully limit the claim because implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Therefore, these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for at least this reason.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, either individually or as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of computer-related components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim(s) are not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 2, 4-7, 9, 11-14, 16, and 18-20, these claim(s) incorporate the above abstract idea via their dependencies on the respective independent claim(s). The additional element(s)/limitation(s) of the respective independent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they add significantly more, with respect to those dependent claim(s), under the same reasoning as above with respect to the respective independent claim(s).
The added elements/limitations of those dependent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor add significantly more because they all merely add further functional step(s) and/or detail to the abstract idea; as part of the abstract idea, they cannot integrate into a practical application or be significantly more than the abstract idea of which they are a part. For example, the added limitations of claim 4 merely provide further details on the information provided.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and is without significantly more.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-8, 11-15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chheda, US 20170012920 A1, in view of Ramanujam, US 20150339928 A1, in further view of Camp, US 20110301985 A1.
As per Claims 1, 8, and 15, Chheda discloses:
- a computer-implemented method (Figure 1; paragraph [0012] (“Still further, another technical effect and benefit provided with examples includes a system and method which generates relevant (e.g., for transport) messages or notifications using indirect inputs or signals.”); paragraph [0022] (“Depending on implementation, one or more components of the system 100 can be implemented on network side resources, such as on one or more servers or computing systems.”));
- receiving, at one or more servers, a transportation request transmitted from an authorizing computing device of an authorizing user to transport a passenger computing device of a passenger from a pickup location to a destination location (paragraph [0022] (“Depending on implementation, one or more components of the system 100 can be implemented on network side resources, such as on one or more servers or computing systems.”); paragraph [0025] (“As described herein, an operator of a first rider device 180 (e.g., a first user) can interact with a respective client application 181 to make a request for a transport service. Typically, the first user can provide input via the client application 181 to specify a pickup location (and/or a destination location) and to select a specific vehicle type (in cases where multiple vehicle types are available at the pickup location) for the transport service.”); paragraph [0035] (“As described herein, various messages can be transmitted to the rider device 180 of the first user (who requested the transport service) and/or to the second device 170 of the second user in connection with the transport service.”); paragraph [0056] (“The system 100 can receive a request for transport service from a first device operated by a first user, such as described in FIG. 2A (250). In this example, the request can be for a transport service for a second user.”));
- in response to detecting a first transportation fulfillment stage of the transportation request, providing, for display, a first set of shared digital transportation information via a first user interface of the authorizing computing device and a second user interface of the passenger computing device, wherein the first set of shared digital transportation information comprises a unified notification across the authorizing computing device and the passenger computing device indicating the progress of the transportation request (paragraph [0035] (“As described herein, various messages can be transmitted to the rider device 180 of the first user (who requested the transport service) and/or to the second device 170 of the second user in connection with the transport service.”; “According to an example, the message manage 150 can access the message database 144 to determine the content of the message (e.g., textual content, graphical content, and/or links to web content, etc.) and to generate and/or format the message to be transmitted based on the transport service update 118 and the selected messaging protocol. As described herein, the different messages to be transmitted to the rider device 180 and/or the second device 170 can include one or more of, or a combination of, (i) information about a transport service having been requested for the second user by the first user, (ii) information about the pickup location of the second user, (iii) information about a transport service being arranged for the second user, e.g., a driver being selected, (iv) information about the selected driver and/or vehicle, (v) information about the status of the driver, (vi) information about the status of the transport service, e.g., where the second user or driver is on the trip, or (vii) other information in connection with the specific transport service.”); paragraph [0042] (whole paragraph); paragraph [0053]; paragraph [0076]);
- in response to detecting a second transportation fulfillment stage of the transportation request, providing, for display, a second set of shared digital transportation information via the first user interface of the authorizing computing device and the second user interface of the passenger computing device, wherein the second set of shared digital transportation information comprises a unified drop off notification across the authorizing computing device and the passenger computing device (paragraph [0035] (“As described herein, various messages can be transmitted to the rider device 180 of the first user (who requested the transport service) and/or to the second device 170 of the second user in connection with the transport service.”; “According to an example, the message manage 150 can access the message database 144 to determine the content of the message (e.g., textual content, graphical content, and/or links to web content, etc.) and to generate and/or format the message to be transmitted based on the transport service update 118 and the selected messaging protocol. As described herein, the different messages to be transmitted to the rider device 180 and/or the second device 170 can include one or more of, or a combination of, (i) information about a transport service having been requested for the second user by the first user, (ii) information about the pickup location of the second user, (iii) information about a transport service being arranged for the second user, e.g., a driver being selected, (iv) information about the selected driver and/or vehicle, (v) information about the status of the driver, (vi) information about the status of the transport service, e.g., where the second user or driver is on the trip, or (vii) other information in connection with the specific transport service.”); paragraph [0042] (whole paragraph); paragraph [0062]);
- a system comprising: at least one processor; and at least one non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system (paragraph [0018]);
- a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions thereon that, when executed by at least one processor device, cause the at least one processor device (paragraph [0018]).
Chheda fails to disclose transmitting, to a driver computing device, navigation instructions to fulfill the transportation request and transport the passenger computing device from the pickup location to the destination location. Ramanujam discloses transmitting, to a driver computing device, navigation instructions to fulfill the transportation request and transport the passenger computing device from the pickup location to the destination location (Figure 2A; paragraph [0012] (“FIG. 9 illustrates an autonomous vehicle according to an example of the present technology.”); paragraph [0016] (“The pickup location may be a current location associated with the mobile device or a specific location defined in the taxi service request.”); paragraph [0021] (“For example, the autonomous vehicle may detect that the user's mobile device is in proximity to the autonomous vehicle, and therefore, the user is presumed to be carrying the mobile device and is authorized to enter into the autonomous vehicle.”); paragraph [0026] (“The taxi service request may include various details about the taxi service, such as a pickup location, a pickup time, a drop-off location, a drop-off time, vehicle type, etc.”); paragraph [0034] (“In one example, the instruction module 234 may provide a route for which the autonomous vehicle 205 is to follow when traveling from the autonomous vehicle's current location to the pickup location, and the route for which the autonomous vehicle 205 is to follow when traveling from the pickup location to the drop-off location.”); paragraph [0065] (“In one example, based on the pickup location received from the server 310, the autonomous vehicle 330 may determine a route for traveling from the autonomous vehicle's current location to the pickup location.”; “In an alternative configuration, the server 310 may provide the route to the autonomous vehicle 330, and the autonomous vehicle 330 may follow the route when driving to the pickup location.”); paragraph [0095] (“FIG. 9 illustrates an example of an autonomous vehicle 900 that is capable of sensing a surrounding environment and navigating itself to a destination. The autonomous vehicle 900 may be classified as a “Level 0” autonomous vehicle, a “Level 1” autonomous vehicle, a “Level 2” autonomous vehicle, a “Level 3” autonomous vehicle, or a “Level 4” autonomous vehicle. In Level 0, a driver may control the autonomous vehicle 900 at substantially all times. The driver may be in complete and sole control of primary vehicle controls, such as brake, steering, throttle and motive power.”)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chheda such that the invention transmits, to a driver computing device, navigation instructions to fulfill the transportation request and transport the passenger computing device from the pickup location to the destination location, as disclosed by Ramanujam, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The modified Chheda fails to disclose wherein the notification indicating the progress of the transportation request indicates that the passenger computing device has been picked up. Camp discloses wherein the notification indicating the progress of the transportation request indicates that the passenger computing device has been picked up (Figure 7E; paragraph [0053]; paragraph [0083]; paragraph [0109]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Chheda such that the notification indicating the progress of the transportation request indicates that the passenger computing device has been picked up, as disclosed by Camp, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claims 4 and 11, Chheda further discloses wherein providing the second set of shared digital transportation information comprises providing, for display, updating location data via the first user interface of the authorizing computing device and the second user interface of the passenger computing device (paragraph [0035]; paragraph [0036]; paragraph [0037]; paragraph [0042]).
As per Claims 5 and 12, Chheda further discloses wherein providing the second set of shared digital transportation information comprises providing, for display, a destination reached notification via the first user interface of the authorizing computing device and the second user interface of the passenger computing device (paragraph [0035]; paragraph [0042]; paragraph [0062]).
As per Claims 6, 13, and 19, Chheda further discloses, in response to detecting a third transportation fulfillment stage of the transportation request, providing, for display, a third set of shared digital transportation information via the first user interface of the authorizing computing device and the second user interface of the passenger computing device (paragraph [0035]; paragraph [0042]; paragraph [0053]; paragraph [0062]; paragraph [0076]).
As per Claims 7, 14, and 20, Chheda further discloses in response to detecting the second transportation fulfillment stage of the transportation request, providing, for display, the second set of shared digital transportation information via the first user interface of the authorizing computing device and the second user interface of the passenger computing device (paragraph [0035]; paragraph [0042]).
The modified Chheda fails to disclose wherein transportation progress information displayed on the second device is also displayed on a user interface of the driver computing device. Camp further discloses wherein transportation progress information displayed on the second device is also displayed on a user interface of the driver computing device (paragraph [0053]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Chheda such that transportation progress information displayed on the second device is also displayed on a user interface of the driver computing device, as disclosed by Camp, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 18, Chheda further discloses wherein providing the second set of shared digital transportation information comprises providing, for display, updating location data via the first user interface of the authorizing computing device and the second user interface of the passenger computing device (paragraph [0035]; paragraph [0036]; paragraph [0037]; paragraph [0042]).
Claim(s) 2-3, 9-10, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chheda in view of Ramanujam in further view of Camp in further view of Bodin, US 20130124279 A1.
As per Claims 2, 9, and 16, the modified Chheda fails to disclose wherein determining that the passenger computing device has been picked up comprises: receiving a pickup location for the passenger computing device; and detecting that a location of the passenger computing device is in sync with a location of the driver computing device. Camp further discloses wherein determining that the passenger computing device has been picked up comprises: receiving a pickup location for the passenger computing device; and detecting that a location of the passenger computing device is in sync with a location of the driver computing device (paragraph [0053]; paragraph [0083]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Chheda such that determining that the passenger computing device has been picked up comprises: receiving a pickup location for the passenger computing device; and detecting that a location of the passenger computing device is in sync with a location of the driver computing device, as disclosed by Camp, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The modified Chheda fails to disclose wherein determining that the passenger computing device has been picked up comprises: detecting that the driver computing device is at GPS coordinates corresponding to the pickup location. Bodin discloses wherein determining that the passenger computing device has been picked up comprises: detecting that the driver computing device is at GPS coordinates corresponding to the pickup location (paragraph [0003]; paragraph [0028]; paragraph [0033]; paragraph 0034]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Chheda such that determining that the passenger computing device has been picked up comprises: detecting that the driver computing device is at GPS coordinates corresponding to the pickup location, as disclosed by Bodin, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claims 3, 10, and 17, Chheda further discloses providing, for display the unified notification across the authorizing computing device and the passenger computing device indicating the progress of the transportation request (paragraph [0035]; paragraph [0042]; paragraph [0053]; paragraph [0076]).
The modified Chheda fails to disclose wherein the notification indicating the progress of the transportation request indicates that the passenger computing device has been picked up. Camp discloses wherein the notification indicating the progress of the transportation request indicates that the passenger computing device has been picked up (Figure 7E; paragraph [0053]; paragraph [0083]; paragraph [0109]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Chheda such that the notification indicating the progress of the transportation request indicates that the passenger computing device has been picked up, as disclosed by Camp, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The modified Chheda fails to disclose wherein determining that the passenger computing device has been picked up comprises: receiving a pickup location for the passenger computing device; and detecting that a location of the passenger computing device is in sync with a location of the driver computing device. Camp further discloses wherein determining that the passenger computing device has been picked up comprises: receiving a pickup location for the passenger computing device; and detecting that a location of the passenger computing device is in sync with a location of the driver computing device (paragraph [0053]; paragraph [0083]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Chheda such that determining that the passenger computing device has been picked up comprises: receiving a pickup location for the passenger computing device; and detecting that a location of the passenger computing device is in sync with a location of the driver computing device, as disclosed by Camp, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The modified Chheda fails to disclose wherein determining that the passenger computing device has been picked up comprises: detecting that the driver computing device is at GPS coordinates corresponding to the pickup location. Bodin further discloses wherein determining that the passenger computing device has been picked up comprises: detecting that the driver computing device is at GPS coordinates corresponding to the pickup location (paragraph [0003]; paragraph [0028]; paragraph [0033]; paragraph 0034]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Chheda such that determining that the passenger computing device has been picked up comprises: detecting that the driver computing device is at GPS coordinates corresponding to the pickup location, as disclosed by Bodin, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Culbertson, U.S. Patent No. 5799263 (public transit system and apparatus and method for dispatching public transit vehicles).
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 NATHAN ERB whose telephone number is (571)272-7606. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 11:30 AM - 8 PM.
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, JEFFREY ZIMMERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
nhe
/NATHAN ERB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628