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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to an AMENDMENT entered on February 20, 2026 for patent application 18/619,790 filed on March 28, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (Pub. No.: US 2023/0274198) in view of Jampani et al. (Pub. No.: US 2017/0026806).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a system for scheduling reservable physical facilities (RPFs) (Fig. 1A, element 128, para. [0056]) based on time-bound logical linkages (TBLLs) between meeting rooms and wireless location finders (WLFs) in a built physical environment (BPE) (Fig. 1A, element 130, paras. [0056] and [0061]), the system comprising: a back-end computational environment (CE) comprising: a back-end network interface to communicatively couple with a BPE communication network (Fig. 1A, element 104, para. [0058]), wherein each meeting room has a respective physical location in the BPE and a respective logical location in the BPE communication network (paras. [0086]-[0091]); a scheduler back-end to generate a reservation event for a selected event RPF of the BPE, the reservation event identifying at least an event invitee and an event start time (Fig. 2, paras. [0059]-[0083]); a non-transitory processor-readable reservation events log (Fig. 1B, elements 132 and 154, paras. [0080] and [0081]); and the identified WLF integrated into a client CE determined to have an association with the event invitee (Fig. 1A, elements 102, 104 and 188, paras. [0050]-[0055]), and the event window determined based on the event start time (para. [0058]).
Park does not explicitly disclose wireless location anchors (WLAs), and thus does not disclose that TBLLs are between WLAs and WLFs, nor wherein the BPE communication network is further in communication with a plurality of WLAs, each having a respective physical location in the BPE and a respective logical location in the BPE communication network, nor wherein each RPF is physically locatable based on the respective physical location of at least one of the WLAs, and thus does not disclose a TBLL engine to: generate one or more TBLLs based on the reservation event, each TBLL defining a logical linkage between an identified WLA and an identified WLF to be active during an event window, wherein the identified WLA is one of the plurality of WLAs determined to have a respective physical location corresponding to the selected event RPF, and store the one or more TBLLs as one or more TBLL events in the reservation events log. However, in analogous art, Jampani discloses an indoor positioning system for meeting room occupancy, wherein “ [a] wireless device 50 equipped for wireless communication via the wireless APs 24 is capable of receiving broadcast messages or signals output by the wireless APs 24. In known manner, the wireless device 50 measures the received signal strength (RSSI) of detected signals from the wireless APs 24. The wireless device 50 may include an indoor positioning application 51. The indoor positioning application 51 detects RSSI measurements for wireless AP signals and attempts to correlate them with wireless AP fingerprints that are themselves correlated to a location in the facility. In this manner, the indoor positioning application 51 may determine the current location of the wireless device 50. The wireless AP measurements may be obtained from a chipset, such as a WiFi chip, in some embodiments. The indoor positioning application 51 may include a graphical map interface module for displaying a map of the facility with an indicator of the determined location, so as to communicate current position to the user (para. [0027]).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park to allow for wireless location anchors (WLAs), wherein TBLLs are between WLAs and WLFs, wherein the BPE communication network is further in communication with a plurality of WLAs, each having a respective physical location in the BPE and a respective logical location in the BPE communication network, wherein each RPF is physically locatable based on the respective physical location of at least one of the WLAs, and a TBLL engine to: generate one or more TBLLs based on the reservation event, each TBLL defining a logical linkage between an identified WLA and an identified WLF to be active during an event window, wherein the identified WLA is one of the plurality of WLAs determined to have a respective physical location corresponding to the selected event RPF, and store the one or more TBLLs as one or more TBLL events in the reservation events log. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for the system of Park to be improved using well-known wireless access point technology in order to allow for mapping of the building, which could result in an improved user experience.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Park and Jampani discloses the system of claim 1, and further discloses wherein: the scheduler back-end is further to receive a reservation event update and to notify the TBLL engine of the reservation event update; and the TBLL engine is further to automatically update the one or more TBLL events in response to and in accordance with the reservation event update (Park, Fig. 6C, para. [0112]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Park and Jampani discloses the system of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the back-end CE further comprises: a mapper back-end to interface with a mapper front-end running in the client CE to automatically perform wireless mapping of the identified WLF to the respective physical location of the identified WLA during the event window based on the one or more TBLL events, the wireless mapping based on monitoring signal strength measurements between the identified WLF and one or more of the WLAs (Jampani, Fig. 1, elements 51 and 40, paras. [0027]-[0030]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Park and Jampani discloses the system of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the back-end CE further comprises: a BPE infrastructure back-end to automatically control one or more physical displays associated with the event RPF during the event window to display information relating to the reservation event, the event invitee, and/or the event RPF based on the one or more TBLL events (Park, Figs. 6A-6D, paras. [0102]-[0114]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Park and Jampani discloses the system of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the back-end CE further comprises: a tracker back-end to monitor whether the event invitee is presently located at the event RPF during the event window based on tracking relative physical locations of the identified WLF and the identified WLA during the event window based on the one or more TBLL events (Jampani, Fig. 2, element 104, para. [0042]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Park and Jampani discloses the system of claim 1, and further discloses wherein: the client CE is one of a plurality of client CEs (Park, paras. [0082] and [0083]); and the scheduler back-end is further to receive a reservation request from a scheduler front-end running on one of the plurality of client CEs, the reservation request identifying at least the event invitee and the event start time, and to generate the reservation event responsive to and in accordance with receiving the reservation request (Park, Fig. 1A, elements 124 and 134; Fig. 2, paras. [0059]-[0083]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Park and Jampani discloses the system of claim 1, and further discloses further comprising: a non-transitory RPF resource data store indicating a list of the RPFs of the BPE (Park, Fig. 1B, elements 126, 128 and 130, paras. [0086]-[0094]), each RPF stored in association with the respective physical location and respective resource characteristics (Park, Fig. 6B, para. [0108]), wherein the reservation event indicates one or more event characteristics including a number of event invitees, the event invitee being one of the number of event invitees (Jampani, Fig. 1, element 32, para. [0026]), and wherein the scheduler back-end is further to automatically select the event RPF from the list of RPFs in the RPF resource data store so that the respective resource characteristics of the event RPF satisfy the event characteristics indicated by the reservation request (Park, para. [0086]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Park and Jampani discloses the system of claim 1, and further discloses further comprising: the BPE communication network (Park, Fig. 1A, elements 124 and 134, para. [0118]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Park and Jampani discloses the system of claim 1, and further discloses further comprising: the plurality of WLAs (Jampani, Fig. 1, element 24, para. [0027]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.).
Regarding claim 12, Park discloses a method for scheduling reservable physical facilities (RPFs) (Fig. 1A, element 128, para. [0056]) based on time-bound logical linkages (TBLLs) between meeting rooms and wireless location finders (WLFs) in a built physical environment (BPE) (Fig. 1A, element 130, paras. [0056] and [0061]), the method comprising: generating, in a back-end computational environment (CE), a reservation event for a selected event RPF of the BPE, the reservation event identifying at least an event invitee and an event start time (Fig. 2, paras. [0059]-[0083]), wherein the back-end CE is communicatively coupled with a BPE communication network (Fig. 1A, element 104, para. [0058]), determining an identified WLF as integrated into a client CE determined to have an association with the event invitee (Fig. 1A, elements 102, 104 and 188, paras. [0050]-[0055]), and an event window based on the event start time (para. [0058]).
Park does not explicitly disclose wireless location anchors (WLAs), and thus does not disclose that TBLLs are between WLAs and WLFs, nor wherein the BPE communication network is further in communication with a plurality of WLAs, each having a respective physical location in the BPE and a respective logical location in the BPE communication network, nor wherein each RPF is physically locatable based on the respective physical location of at least one of the WLAs, and thus does not disclose determining, by the back-end CE, an identified WLA as one of the plurality of WLAs determined to have a respective physical location corresponding to a selected event RPF, an identified WLF as integrated into a client CE determined to have an association with the event invitee, and an event window based on the event start time; nor generating a TBLL by the back-end CE for the reservation event, the TBLL defining a logical linkage between the identified WLA and the identified WLF to be active during the event window; and storing the TBLL as a TBLL event in a non-transitory reservation events log. However, in analogous art, Jampani discloses an indoor positioning system for meeting room occupancy, wherein “ [a] wireless device 50 equipped for wireless communication via the wireless APs 24 is capable of receiving broadcast messages or signals output by the wireless APs 24. In known manner, the wireless device 50 measures the received signal strength (RSSI) of detected signals from the wireless APs 24. The wireless device 50 may include an indoor positioning application 51. The indoor positioning application 51 detects RSSI measurements for wireless AP signals and attempts to correlate them with wireless AP fingerprints that are themselves correlated to a location in the facility. In this manner, the indoor positioning application 51 may determine the current location of the wireless device 50. The wireless AP measurements may be obtained from a chipset, such as a WiFi chip, in some embodiments. The indoor positioning application 51 may include a graphical map interface module for displaying a map of the facility with an indicator of the determined location, so as to communicate current position to the user (para. [0027]).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park to allow for wireless location anchors (WLAs), wherein TBLLs are between WLAs and WLFs, wherein the BPE communication network is further in communication with a plurality of WLAs, each having a respective physical location in the BPE and a respective logical location in the BPE communication network, wherein each RPF is physically locatable based on the respective physical location of at least one of the WLAs, and thus does not disclose determining, by the back-end CE, an identified WLA as one of the plurality of WLAs determined to have a respective physical location corresponding to a selected event RPF, an identified WLF as integrated into a client CE determined to have an association with the event invitee, and an event window based on the event start time, and generating a TBLL by the back-end CE for the reservation event, the TBLL defining a logical linkage between the identified WLA and the identified WLF to be active during the event window; and storing the TBLL as a TBLL event in a non-transitory reservation events log. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for the system of Park to be improved using well-known wireless access point technology in order to allow for mapping of the building, which could result in an improved user experience.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Park and Jampani discloses the method of claim 12, and further discloses further comprising: receiving a reservation event update; and automatically updating the TBLL event in response to and in accordance with the reservation event update (Park, Fig. 6C, para. [0112]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Park and Jampani discloses the method of claim 12, and further discloses further comprising: interfacing, by the back-end CE, with the client CE to automatically perform wireless mapping of the identified WLF to the respective physical location of the identified WLA during the event window based on the TBLL event, the wireless mapping based on monitoring signal strength measurements between the identified WLF and one or more of the WLAs (Jampani, Fig. 1, elements 51 and 40, paras. [0027]-[0030]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 12.).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Park and Jampani discloses the method of claim 12, and further discloses further comprising: automatically controlling, by the back-end CE, one or more physical displays associated with the event RPF during the event window to display information relating to the reservation event, the event invitee, and/or the event RPF based on the TBLL event (Park, Figs. 6A-6D, paras. [0102]-[0114]).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Park and Jampani discloses the method of claim 12, and further discloses further comprising: monitoring, by the back-end CE, whether the event invitee is presently located at the event RPF during the event window based on tracking relative physical locations of the identified WLF and the identified WLA during the event window based on the one or more TBLL events (Jampani, Fig. 2, element 104, para. [0042]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Park and Jampani discloses the method of claim 12, and further discloses further comprising: receiving a reservation request from one of a plurality of client CEs including the client CE (Park, paras. [0082] and [0083]), the reservation request identifying at least the event invitee and the event start time, wherein the generating the reservation event is responsive to and in accordance with the receiving the reservation request (Park, Fig. 1A, elements 124 and 134; Fig. 2, paras. [0059]-[0083]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Park and Jampani discloses the method of claim 12, and further discloses wherein: the reservation request indicates one or more event characteristics (Jampani, Fig. 1, element 32, para. [0026]); each RPF of the BPE has respective resource characteristics stored in a RPF resource data store (Park, Fig. 1B, elements 126, 128 and 130, paras. [0086]-[0094]); and the generating the reservation event further comprises automatically selecting the event RPF from the RPF resource data store so that the respective resource characteristics of the event RPF satisfy the event characteristics indicated by the reservation request (Park, para. [0086]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.).
Claims 5, 6, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (Pub. No.: US 2023/0274198) in view of Jampani et al. (Pub. No.: US 2017/0026806) and Buckman (Pub. No.: US 2017/0088397).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Park and Jampani discloses the system of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the back-end CE further comprises: a BPE infrastructure back-end to grant the event invitee with physical access to the event RPF and/or to a physical resource of the event RPF during the event window by automatically controlling one or more physical access controls of the event RPF during the event window (Jampani, para. [0024]), however, it could be argued that the combination does not do so based on the one or more TBLL events. However, in analogous art, Buckman discloses that “the system can automatically determine whether a user is authorized to enter an area or take some other action based on the data from the user's mobile device. For example, the system can grant access to a conference room to a user based on the user having a calendar invite to a meeting in the conference room (para. [0063]).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park and Jampani to allow for granting the event invitee with physical access to the event RPF and/or to a physical resource of the event RPF during the event window by automatically controlling one or more physical access controls of the event RPF during the event window based on the one or more TBLL events. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for improving security in the buildings by preventing unauthorized access to certain areas.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Park and Jampani discloses the system of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the back-end CE further comprises: a BPE infrastructure back-end to grant the event invitee with logical access to a computational resource, a communication resource, and/or an audiovisual resource of the event RPF during the event window by automatically controlling one or more logical access controls of the event RPF during the event window based on the one or more TBLL events. However, in analogous art, Buckman discloses that “the system can automatically determine whether a user is authorized to enter an area or take some other action based on the data from the user's mobile device. For example, the system can grant access to a conference room to a user based on the user having a calendar invite to a meeting in the conference room (para. [0063]),” and Park discloses that “[i]nformation about the proposed meeting room 636 is displayed, such as the capacity of the proposed meeting room 636 and what audiovisual equipment the proposed meeting room 636 has (e.g., whether the proposed meeting room 636 has videoconferencing capability) (para. [0108]).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park and Jampani to allow for the back-end CE to further comprise a BPE infrastructure back-end to grant the event invitee with logical access to a computational resource, a communication resource, and/or an audiovisual resource of the event RPF during the event window by automatically controlling one or more logical access controls of the event RPF during the event window based on the one or more TBLL events. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for improving security in the buildings by preventing unauthorized access to certain resources.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Park and Jampani discloses the method of claim 12, and further discloses further comprising: automatically controlling, by the back-end CE, one or more physical access controls of the event RPF during the event window to grant the event invitee with physical access to the event RPF and/or to a physical resource of the event RPF during the event window (Jampani, para. [0024]), however, it could be argued that the combination does not do so based on the TBLL event. However, in analogous art, Buckman discloses that “the system can automatically determine whether a user is authorized to enter an area or take some other action based on the data from the user's mobile device. For example, the system can grant access to a conference room to a user based on the user having a calendar invite to a meeting in the conference room (para. [0063]).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park and Jampani to allow for granting the event invitee with physical access to the event RPF and/or to a physical resource of the event RPF during the event window by automatically controlling one or more physical access controls of the event RPF during the event window based on the one or more TBLL events. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for improving security in the buildings by preventing unauthorized access to certain areas.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Park and Jampani discloses the method of claim 12, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: automatically controlling, by the back-end CE, one or more logical access controls of the event RPF during the event window based on the TBLL event to grant the event invitee with logical access to a computational resource, a communication resource, and/or an audiovisual resource of the event RPF during the event window. However, in analogous art, Buckman discloses that “the system can automatically determine whether a user is authorized to enter an area or take some other action based on the data from the user's mobile device. For example, the system can grant access to a conference room to a user based on the user having a calendar invite to a meeting in the conference room (para. [0063]),” and Park discloses that “[i]nformation about the proposed meeting room 636 is displayed, such as the capacity of the proposed meeting room 636 and what audiovisual equipment the proposed meeting room 636 has (e.g., whether the proposed meeting room 636 has videoconferencing capability) (para. [0108]).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park and Jampani to allow for automatically controlling, by the back-end CE, one or more logical access controls of the event RPF during the event window based on the TBLL event to grant the event invitee with logical access to a computational resource, a communication resource, and/or an audiovisual resource of the event RPF during the event window. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for improving security in the buildings by preventing unauthorized access to certain resources.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages :
Claims 1-4, 7-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as allegedly being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2023/0274198 of Park et al. ("Park") in view of U.S. Publication No. 2017/0026806 of Jampani et al. ("Jampani"). Claims 5-6 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Park in view of Jampani and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2017/0088397 of Buckman ("Buckman").
The TBLL Engine of claim 1 is Not Taught by Jampani
The Office Action asserts that it would have been obvious to modify Park with the wireless access point technology of Jampani to achieve the system of claim 1. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Jampani fails to teach or suggest at least a "TBLL engine" or the creation of a "time-bound logical linkage" as required by Claims 1 and 12.
As recited in claim 1, a TBLL engine is configured to generate one or more TBLLs based on the reservation event, each TBLL defining a logical linkage between an identified WLA and an identified WLF to be active during an event window." As clarified in the Specification, this linkage is not a mere instantaneous location check; rather, the TBLL "provides a processor- readable definition of a linking between the WLF 132 and the WLA 142 during the time of the event window (e.g., and not otherwise)." Specification, par. [0030]. This architecture enables the system to proactively prepare facility infrastructure for a specific duration.
By contrast, Jampani is directed towards detecting unscheduled use of meeting rooms. See, e.g., Jampani, par. [0003]. To do this, Jampani describes an "indoor positioning application 51... [that] detects RSSI measurements for wireless AP signals and attempts to correlate them... to determine the current location of the wireless device." Jampani, par. [0027], emphasis added. Jampani's application is therefore reactive-not proactive-to conditions in a meeting room, and lacks any logic related to a scheduled "event window." Put differently, the indoor positioning application of Jampani cannot "defin[e] a logical linkage between an identified WLA and an identified WLF to be active during an event window" because the problem solved by Jampani is to determine with a user is already using a reserved space, not a space to be used. Neither Park nor Buckman remedy this deficiency.
Because none of Park, Jampani, or Buckman teach at least the "TBLL engine" of claims 1 and 12, claims 1 and 12 are believed to be in condition for allowance. Additionally, all claims depending from claims 1 and 12 are also believed to be in condition for allowance, based at least on their dependence from an allowable base claim as well as for the additional elements recited by each. Applicant respectfully requests the rejections be removed.
Examiner’s response:
In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the architecture described in Applicant’s specification “enables the system to proactively prepare facility infrastructure for a specific duration.”) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s argument that “Jampani's application is therefore reactive - not proactive - to conditions in a meeting room,” is therefore not persuasive, as the claim language does not require the system to “proactively prepare facility infrastructure for a specific duration,” as the word “proactive,” or any variation, is not to be found in the claim language.
Further, in response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
That is, Applicant states that “the problem solved by Jampani is to determine with [sic] a user is already using a reserved space, not a space to be used. Neither Park nor Buckman remedy this deficiency.” Examiner disagrees.
Park states that “[t]he method 200 can also include causing 222 a calendar event 156 for the spontaneous meeting to be automatically created (para. [0081]),” which discloses the concept that a space to be used is reserved by a user for a meeting.
Were Applicant to narrow the claim language to include language from the specification, the rejections may be overcome.
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Joshua D Taylor whose telephone number is (571)270-3755. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 6 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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at 571-272-4195. 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.
/Joshua D Taylor/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426 April 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights