DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the request for continued examination filed 28 May 2026.
Claims 1, 3, 15, 19, 23, and 24 have been amended.
Claims 1-5, 7-17, 19, and 23-25 are currently pending.
Claims 1-5, 7-17, 19, and 23-25 are rejected.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 28 May 2026 has been entered.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 28 May 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US 10817898 and US 11961116 has been reviewed and is NOT accepted. The terminal disclaimer does not comply with 37 CFR 1.321 because: The person who signed the terminal disclaimer is not the applicant, the patentee or an attorney or agent of record. See 37 CFR 1.321(a) and (b). This application was filed on or after September 16, 2012. Notes from the OPLC (Patent Legal Research Center) terminal disclaimer review decision: “Please file a POA that gives power to the attorney who is signing the TD, along with another copy of the TD, or file a TD that is signed by the applicant. (No new fee required) Thanks. Note: The POA submitted 4/15/224 has not been accepted. See the “N572” letter submitted 6/5/226.”
Response to Amendment/Remarks
Regarding the rejection of claims 19, 23, and 24 under 35 USC § 101 for the recitation of transitory signals, the claims have been remedied by amendment of the claims. The rejection is withdrawn.
Regarding the remaining rejections under 35 USC § 101, Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “the claims do not recite placing, selecting, scheduling, targeting, or distributing advertisements, activities that are properly characterized as advertising.” Applicant further implies that advertising is merely the field of use. Remarks at 11. The courts have not limited advertising activities to those listed by Applicant (i.e., placing, selecting, scheduling, etc.). The claims clearly recite determining if a user has likely been exposed to an advertisement. This is an advertisement activity. An advertisement lifecycle does not stop once the ads are placed. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the “claims do not recite any interaction with consumers, any transaction, any agreement, or any behavior modification - the hallmarks of organizing human activity.” Remarks at 11. Again, the courts have not limited this abstract idea grouping to those listed by Applicant (i.e., transaction, agreement, etc.). Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the “claims do not merely recite "performing a calculation" on sensor data in the abstract. Rather, the claims require: "determining a dwell duration based upon the viewshed characteristics of the physical object at least upon one or more of GPS data, accelerometer data, or gyroscope data collected from the one or more mobile devices; and when the dwell duration exceeds a threshold time period, increasing the exposure probability," as recited in claim 1. This is not a single arithmetic calculation on a static data point. Rather, it is a continuous, real-time computational process that requires integrating time-series sensor data streams against a spatial model (the viewshed characteristics) to compute when a mobile device has dwelled within a defined geographic region for a sufficient period.” Remarks at 12. Applicant is arguing limitations not present in the claims. The claims do not recite continuous, real0time computation process that requires integrating time-series sensor data streams against a spatial model. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the “relevant inquiry is not whether a human could theoretically perform a mathematical operation on a given data point in isolation, but whether the claimed process as a whole can "practically be performed in the human mind." See SRI Int'l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019). A human cannot practically: (a) continuously receive and process GPS coordinate streams, accelerometer vectors, and gyroscope orientation data from a mobile device in real time and determine whether the cumulative time within that viewshed exceeds a threshold. The ordered combination of these operations is beyond practical human mental capacity, particularly given that the sensor inputs (GPS, accelerometer, gyroscope) produce continuous data at rates that preclude manual processing.” Remarks at 12. As an initial matter, Examiner was not able to find within SRI Int’l where the holding indicated by Applicant was discussed. Whether the process as a whole can practically be performed in the human mind is not a relevant analysis in the guidance currently utilized by Examiners. Second, Applicant again argues limitations not present in the claims. For example, the claims do not recite continuously receiving and processing GPS coordinate streams, accelerometer vectors, etc. Thus, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims recite “a specific technical solution to a specific technical problem: how to computationally measure the likelihood that a person perceived physical-world content based on the spatial and temporal characteristics of their mobile device’s trajectory relative to the physical object, without requiring invasive monitoring hardware (such as the eye-tracking equipment of the prior art).” Remarks at 13-14. Similar arguments are also present at Remarks at 14-15. MPEP 2106.05(a) indicates that “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art.” Applicant has not provided citations to the specification and Examiner does not find in their search of the specification, an indication that one could view the specification and determine that a technical solution to a technical problem is present. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Regarding 35 USC § 102/103, these arguments are moot in view of the rejections below.
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 1-5, 7-17, 19, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1, 2, 15-17, and 25 recite a system which is considered a machine or manufacture. Claims 3-5 and 7-14 recite a method which is considered a process. Claims 19, 23, and 24 recite a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium which is considered a machine or manufacture.
Step 2A-Prong One
(Claims 1, 3, 15, and 19) The compute/determine exposure probabilities based on a comparison of the received device location information to the accessed object placement information step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “server computer” (claim 1), “computer-implemented” (claim 3), “module” (claim 15), or “computing system” (claim 19) language, the claim encompasses a user manually determining an exposure probability based on known information.
Claims 1-5, 7-17, 19, and 23-25 recite the concept of determining, based on a user’s location and a billboard’s location, the probability that a user actually viewed the advertisement on the billboard. This concept falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping including advertising activities. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The dependent claims further limit the abstract idea by further narrowing object placement information and location information and by further narrowing how the probability is determined. The dependent claims do not remove the claims from any of the abstract idea groupings.
The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer component does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
Step 2A-Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional elements of a system comprising a server computer and memory (claims 1, 2, and 25), a computer (claims 3-5 and 7-14), a system comprising modules (claims 15-17) or a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (claims 19, 23, and 24) and includes no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using these generic computer components. The system comprising a server computer and memory (claims 1, 2, and 25), computer (claims 3-5 and 7-14), system comprising modules (claims 15-17) or non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (claims 19, 23, and 24) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Additionally, the step of “receive device location information” is mere data gathering. This step is considered insignificant extra-solution activity and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A-Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims do not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). The claims are ineligible.
Receiving device location information is considered routine, conventional, and well-understood. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network.
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 of this title, 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 1-3, 5, 8-10, 13, 14, 19, 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2011/0161163 (“Carlson”) in view of U.S. 2008/0140479 (“Mello”) and U.S. 2005/0243784 (“Fitzgerald”).
Regarding Claim 1, Carlson teaches a system, comprising: at least one server computer; at least one memory storing instructions for execution by the at least one server computer (See “Memory can 114 also store operating instructions for execution by the processor 112. Note that the processor 112 can be implemented as, for example, a CPU (Central Processing Unit) or the portion of a data-processing system/apparatus (e.g., a computer, server, etc) that carries out the instructions of a computer program as the primary element for carrying out the data-processing functions of such a computer” in ¶ 0032.), wherein the instructions are configured to cause the at least one server computer to perform operations comprising:
receive device location information associated with one or more mobile devices positioned at certain geographic locations, wherein a mobile device provides, directly or indirectly, a series of location information to the server computer via a network (See “the data processing apparatus or system 100 can be configured as a device such as a Smart Phone or other computing device. System 100 as depicted in FIG. 1 can include, in some embodiments, a wearable brain activity-sensing device or module 102 and an eye tracking device or module 103 that can monitor the relative direction of an eyeball of an individual with respect to a relative direction of signage that is in the field of view of the eyeball” in ¶ 0023, “System 100 can additionally include processor 112 for processing and correlating the user, content, location, surveillance, direction, velocity and field of view data collected by the system sensors such as from the surveillance module 104, eye tracking module 103, brain activity-sensing module 102 and the location detection system 116. The location detection system 116 can include at least one sensor that detects the location and velocity of the system 100 or the user, relative to the earth” in ¶ 0027, “Such systems can detect location and velocity with a cellular communications system using tower directions and a process know as triangulation in a network location system, such as a wireless local area network location system, a GPS system, or a beacon type system, for example” in ¶ 0028, and “The location detection module 116 can continue collecting data regarding the individual's location as that individual moves in relation to signs and specific media content. The location information can be collected and stored in the individual's mobile communications device, which may then be transmitted to a server 124 operated by a service provider at a remote location for processing” in ¶ 0034. Coordinates are an inherent output of a GPS system.);
access object placement information associated with visually-perceptible content presented by physical objects at the certain geographic locations, wherein the object placement information for each physical object includes viewshed characteristics for the physical object (See “A database can store the locus of points that define the plane of the sign as it relates to coordinates, or a street addressed on the earth” in ¶ 0058 and “Because the signage locations can be stored in a sign location database as a locus of points, in addition to street addresses of the signs, the location detection system 116 of the system 100 can locate and transmit the signage location using data contained in the aforementioned sign location database. A remote computer server can then compute the locus of points that define the sign and the locus of coordinates that define the user field of view. The server can then determine if the sign is within the user's field of view. A sign's elevation data can be determined using many different methods, including using elevation data acquired by the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM), the Aster Global Digital Elevation Model (Aster GDEM), or the GTOPO30 Global Digital Elevation Model (DEM), and so forth” in ¶ 0059. A viewshed characteristic is interpreted to mean any characteristic having an impact on a viewshed (e.g., elevation).); and
compute exposure probabilities based on a comparison of the received device location information to the accessed object placement information, wherein a computed exposure probability represents a probability that a user of one of the one or more mobile devices visually perceived content presented by one of the physical objects (See “The user's impressions or exposure to signage content can then be determined by server 124 to correlate information obtained from the eye-tracking module 100 and from sign location/content database 128. The sign location/content can track what content is on what sign during a specific time period. The eye-tracking module 103 can be co-located with many different location, direction and velocity sensors. Information provided by these sensors can be correlated with a signage location detection system or data in the database 128 to correlate and provide positive information about the signage information viewed by the user” in ¶ 0031 and “determining a probability that the user views the at least one sign utilizing parameters comprising the location of the sign(s), the location of the user, the field of view of the user; and/or the direction of the field of view of the user” in ¶ 0074.),
wherein determining the exposure probability comprises: determining a dwell duration based upon the viewshed characteristics of the physical object at least upon one or more of GPS data, accelerometer data, or gyroscope data collected from the mobile device; and when the dwell duration exceeds a threshold time period, increasing the exposure probability; wherein the exposure probability is used to determine a conversion event associated with the mobile device (See “determining when the locus of points defining the sign(s) and the locus of points defined by the field of view intersect, determining a time frame of the intersection of the locus of points, and determining the content present on the sign(s) during the time frame” in ¶ 0077, “the location of the field of view can be detected utilizing one or more of the following: a Global Position Satellite receiver” in ¶ 0080, and “determining a probability, by executing a program instruction in a wearable data-processing apparatus, that the user views the at least one sign utilizing parameters comprising: a dwell time; the location of the at least one sign; the location of the user; the field of view of the user; and the direction of the field of view of the user” in claim 3.).
Carlson does not expressly teach wherein at least one viewshed characteristic is based on a density of structures within a surrounding geography of the physical object; providing the exposure probability.
However, Fitzgerald teaches wherein at least one viewshed characteristic is based on a density of structures within a surrounding geography of the physical object (See “Referring again to table 346 shown in FIG. 19, advertisements 280a and 280b have designated distances of 100 feet, advertisement 280c has a designated distance of 200 feet, and advertisement 280g has a designated distance of 500 feet. The other advertisements are not represented in FIG. 19 and may have the same or different designated distances. As shown in map 240 of FIG. 10, advertisements 280a and 280b are relatively close to various intersections and, thus, may be less visible at further distances. Also, the existence of trees, buildings and other obstructions may limit visibility of these advertisements from further distances. Advertisement 280c may be substantially large and thus visible from the greater distance of 200 feet. Advertisement 280g may be large and visible from the even greater distance of 500 feet. Of course, the distances provided are for illustrative purposes only. In any event, distances for outdoor advertisements may take multiple factors into account, such as their size, general visibility, nearby obstructions, including trees, buildings, etc., proximity and density of adjacent signs and other viewable elements, and other factors” in ¶ 0161.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Carlson and Fitzgerald to consider structure density within the surroundings when determining viewshed. The motivation, as shown in Fitzgerald, is to utilize such information to determine what advertisements/physical objects are visible at what distances. Any obstruction affects the viewshed, such as trees, buildings, etc., as described in Fitzgerald.
Further, Mello teaches providing the exposure probability (See “example, for each valid location identifier, the data analyzer 208 can determine if that location is sufficiently proximate to an advertisement at a fixed or stationary location such that the monitored person 32 would have been exposed to the advertisement so that the monitored person 32 could be influenced by the advertisement to perform some action (e.g., request information, purchase a product/service, visit an advertised retail establishment, etc.) related to the advertisement. An example implementation of the advertisement exposure analysis based on location information is described below in connection with the example process of FIG. 7. In the illustrated example, the data file interface 206 stores information indicative of advertisements to which the monitored person 32 was exposed in an advertisement exposure data structure 624 (e.g., a file, a database, a table, etc.)” in ¶ 0090 and Fig. 2 showing a transmission/providing step must be performed between analyzer 208 and file interface 206.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Carlson, Fitzgerald, and Mello to provide the exposure probability to an attribution system. The motivation, as shown in the Mello flowchart of Fig. 6, is to perform a next step of correlating ad exposure and retail visits with query information and ultimately credit query results as having influence on the user.
Regarding Claim 2, Carlson further teaches the object placement information for each physical object includes viewshed characteristics for content on facing surface of the physical object (See “This locus of points can be compared to and coordinated with the latitude and longitude information of the corners of the sign (defining a plane) in two dimensional space to determine if the user is being, or has been, exposed to the content on the sign” in ¶ 0029. Indication of a conclusion that the user has been exposed to the content indicates that the invention is referencing a facing surface rather than a back/unoccupied surface.), and wherein the receive device location information includes estimated heading information for the one or more mobile devices (See “Part of the system 300 can be collocated with earphones 302 and comprised of a number of eye tracking sensors, location sensors, direction sensors, and brain activity sensors” in ¶ 0047.).
Regarding Claim 3, Carlson teaches computer-implemented method of providing content exposure information to an attribution system, the method comprising:
receiving device location information associated with a target mobile device positioned at a certain geographic location (See “the data processing apparatus or system 100 can be configured as a device such as a Smart Phone or other computing device. System 100 as depicted in FIG. 1 can include, in some embodiments, a wearable brain activity-sensing device or module 102 and an eye tracking device or module 103 that can monitor the relative direction of an eyeball of an individual with respect to a relative direction of signage that is in the field of view of the eyeball” in ¶ 0023, “System 100 can additionally include processor 112 for processing and correlating the user, content, location, surveillance, direction, velocity and field of view data collected by the system sensors such as from the surveillance module 104, eye tracking module 103, brain activity-sensing module 102 and the location detection system 116. The location detection system 116 can include at least one sensor that detects the location and velocity of the system 100 or the user, relative to the earth” in ¶ 0027, “Such systems can detect location and velocity with a cellular communications system using tower directions and a process know as triangulation in a network location system, such as a wireless local area network location system, a GPS system, or a beacon type system, for example” in ¶ 0028, and “The location detection module 116 can continue collecting data regarding the individual's location as that individual moves in relation to signs and specific media content. The location information can be collected and stored in the individual's mobile communications device, which may then be transmitted to a server 124 operated by a service provider at a remote location for processing” in ¶ 0034.);
receiving object placement information associated with content presented by a physical object at the certain geographic location (See “A database can store the locus of points that define the plane of the sign as it relates to coordinates, or a street addressed on the earth” in ¶ 0058 and “Because the signage locations can be stored in a sign location database as a locus of points, in addition to street addresses of the signs, the location detection system 116 of the system 100 can locate and transmit the signage location using data contained in the aforementioned sign location database. A remote computer server can then compute the locus of points that define the sign and the locus of coordinates that define the user field of view. The server can then determine if the sign is within the user's field of view. A sign's elevation data can be determined using many different methods, including using elevation data acquired by the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM), the Aster Global Digital Elevation Model (Aster GDEM), or the GTOPO30 Global Digital Elevation Model (DEM), and so forth” in ¶ 0059.);
determining an exposure probability that is based on a comparison of the received device location information to the received object placement information (See “The user's impressions or exposure to signage content can then be determined by server 124 to correlate information obtained from the eye-tracking module 100 and from sign location/content database 128. The sign location/content can track what content is on what sign during a specific time period. The eye-tracking module 103 can be co-located with many different location, direction and velocity sensors. Information provided by these sensors can be correlated with a signage location detection system or data in the database 128 to correlate and provide positive information about the signage information viewed by the user” in ¶ 0031 and “determining a probability that the user views the at least one sign utilizing parameters comprising the location of the sign(s), the location of the user, the field of view of the user; and/or the direction of the field of view of the user” in ¶ 0074.),
wherein determining the exposure probability comprises: determining a dwell duration based upon the viewshed characteristics of the physical object at least upon one or more of GPS data, accelerometer data, or gyroscope data collected from the mobile device; and when the dwell duration exceeds a threshold time period, increasing the exposure probability (See “determining when the locus of points defining the sign(s) and the locus of points defined by the field of view intersect, determining a time frame of the intersection of the locus of points, and determining the content present on the sign(s) during the time frame” in ¶ 0077, “the location of the field of view can be detected utilizing one or more of the following: a Global Position Satellite receiver” in ¶ 0080, and “determining a probability, by executing a program instruction in a wearable data-processing apparatus, that the user views the at least one sign utilizing parameters comprising: a dwell time; the location of the at least one sign; the location of the user; the field of view of the user; and the direction of the field of view of the user” in claim 3.).
Carlson does not expressly teach wherein the viewshed characteristic is determined based on a density of structures within a surrounding geography of the physical object; providing the determined exposure probability to the attribution system.
However, Fitzgerald teaches wherein the viewshed characteristic is determined based on a density of structures within a surrounding geography of the physical object (See “Referring again to table 346 shown in FIG. 19, advertisements 280a and 280b have designated distances of 100 feet, advertisement 280c has a designated distance of 200 feet, and advertisement 280g has a designated distance of 500 feet. The other advertisements are not represented in FIG. 19 and may have the same or different designated distances. As shown in map 240 of FIG. 10, advertisements 280a and 280b are relatively close to various intersections and, thus, may be less visible at further distances. Also, the existence of trees, buildings and other obstructions may limit visibility of these advertisements from further distances. Advertisement 280c may be substantially large and thus visible from the greater distance of 200 feet. Advertisement 280g may be large and visible from the even greater distance of 500 feet. Of course, the distances provided are for illustrative purposes only. In any event, distances for outdoor advertisements may take multiple factors into account, such as their size, general visibility, nearby obstructions, including trees, buildings, etc., proximity and density of adjacent signs and other viewable elements, and other factors” in ¶ 0161.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Carlson and Fitzgerald to consider structure density within the surroundings when determining viewshed. The motivation, as shown in Fitzgerald, is to utilize such information to determine what advertisements/physical objects are visible at what distances. Any obstruction affects the viewshed, such as trees, buildings, etc., as described in Fitzgerald.
Further, Mello teaches providing the determined exposure probability to the attribution system (See “example, for each valid location identifier, the data analyzer 208 can determine if that location is sufficiently proximate to an advertisement at a fixed or stationary location such that the monitored person 32 would have been exposed to the advertisement so that the monitored person 32 could be influenced by the advertisement to perform some action (e.g., request information, purchase a product/service, visit an advertised retail establishment, etc.) related to the advertisement. An example implementation of the advertisement exposure analysis based on location information is described below in connection with the example process of FIG. 7. In the illustrated example, the data file interface 206 stores information indicative of advertisements to which the monitored person 32 was exposed in an advertisement exposure data structure 624 (e.g., a file, a database, a table, etc.)” in ¶ 0090 and Fig. 2 showing a transmission/providing step must be performed between analyzer 208 and file interface 206.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Carlson, Fitzgerald, and Mello to provide the exposure probability to an attribution system. The motivation, as shown in the Mello flowchart of Fig. 6, is to perform a next step of correlating ad exposure and retail visits with query information and ultimately credit query results as having influence on the user.
Regarding Claim 5, Carlson further teaches determining an exposure probability that is based on a comparison of the received device location information to the received object placement information includes determining an exposure probability as a function of the received device location information and the received object placement information, as L_exposure= F(EXPOSURE |Pu, Bi); where L_exposure is the exposure probability, EXPOSURE is a state of exposure, Pu is a set of location trace characteristics for the mobile device, and Bi is a set of placement characteristics of the content presented by the physical object (See “The user's impressions or exposure to signage content can then be determined by server 124 to correlate information obtained from the eye-tracking module 100 and from sign location/content database 128. The sign location/content can track what content is on what sign during a specific time period. The eye-tracking module 103 can be co-located with many different location, direction and velocity sensors. Information provided by these sensors can be correlated with a signage location detection system or data in the database 128 to correlate and provide positive information about the signage information viewed by the user” in ¶ 0031 and “determining a probability that the user views the at least one sign utilizing parameters comprising the location of the sign(s), the location of the user, the field of view of the user; and/or the direction of the field of view of the user” in ¶ 0074.).
Regarding Claim 8, Carlson further teaches determining an exposure probability that is based on a comparison of the received device location information to the received object placement information further includes determining an exposure probability between 0 percent to 100 percent, inclusive (See “determining a probability that the user views the at least one sign utilizing parameters comprising the location of the sign(s), the location of the user, the field of view of the user; and/or the direction of the field of view of the user” in ¶ 0074.).
Regarding Claim 9, Carlson further teaches determining an exposure probability that is based on a comparison of the received device location information to the received object placement information further comprises determining an exposure probability as a binary value indicative of a confirmed exposure (See “determining a probability that the user views the at least one sign utilizing parameters comprising the location of the sign(s), the location of the user, the field of view of the user; and/or the direction of the field of view of the user” in ¶ 0074.).
Regarding Claim 10, Carlson further teaches receiving device location information associated with a mobile device positioned at a certain geographic location includes comprises information from one or more GPS sensors of the target mobile device (See “Such systems can detect location and velocity with a cellular communications system using tower directions and a process know[n] as triangulation in a network location system, such as a wireless local area network location system, a GPS system, or a beacon type system, for example” in ¶ 0028.).
Regarding Claim 13, Carlson further teaches the content presented by the physical object at the certain geographic location is an advertisement presented by a billboard (See “Billboards and poster content is static if printed on paper or other material. Recently, however, the advertising industry began using electronic billboards and digital displays, generally. These digital billboards appear primarily on major highways, expressways or principal arterials, and command high-density consumer exposure, mostly to vehicular traffic. Digital billboards provide greater visibility to viewers than static, content-based display because of the digital billboard's commanding size and the advertiser's ability to perform customizable updates on the digital billboard. Not only can many advertisers share a single digital billboard each month, but an advertiser can change their content in near real-time. These new types of displays are also capable of imparting different advertisements on a single digital display, with each display changing content advertisements over a period of a few minutes” in ¶ 0005.).
Regarding Claim 14, Carlson further teaches the content presented by the physical object at the certain geographic location is an advertisement presented by a vehicle traveling within the certain geographic location (See “Smaller displays of electronic and printed matter are also present … in taxis” in ¶ 0004.).
Regarding Claim 19, this claim is sufficiently similar to claim 3 and is rejected similarly.
Regarding Claim 23, Carlson further teaches the content presented by the physical object is a stationary advertisement (See “Billboards and poster content is static if printed on paper or other material. Recently, however, the advertising industry began using electronic billboards and digital displays, generally. These digital billboards appear primarily on major highways, expressways or principal arterials, and command high-density consumer exposure, mostly to vehicular traffic. Digital billboards provide greater visibility to viewers than static, content-based display because of the digital billboard's commanding size and the advertiser's ability to perform customizable updates on the digital billboard. Not only can many advertisers share a single digital billboard each month, but an advertiser can change their content in near real-time. These new types of displays are also capable of imparting different advertisements on a single digital display, with each display changing content advertisements over a period of a few minutes” in ¶ 0005.).
Regarding Claim 24, Carlson further teaches the content presented by the physical object is an advertisement presented by a vehicle traveling within the certain geographic location (See “Smaller displays of electronic and printed matter are also present … in taxis” in ¶ 0004.).
Regarding Claim 25, Carlson further teaches the content presented by the physical object is one of a stationary advertisement or an advertisement presented by a vehicle traveling within the certain geographic location (See “Smaller displays of electronic and printed matter are also present … in taxis” in ¶ 0004 and See “Billboards and poster content is static if printed on paper or other material. Recently, however, the advertising industry began using electronic billboards and digital displays, generally. These digital billboards appear primarily on major highways, expressways or principal arterials, and command high-density consumer exposure, mostly to vehicular traffic. Digital billboards provide greater visibility to viewers than static, content-based display because of the digital billboard's commanding size and the advertiser's ability to perform customizable updates on the digital billboard. Not only can many advertisers share a single digital billboard each month, but an advertiser can change their content in near real-time. These new types of displays are also capable of imparting different advertisements on a single digital display, with each display changing content advertisements over a period of a few minutes” in ¶ 0005.).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson in view of Mello and Fitzgerald, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0265215 (“Lindstrom”).
Regarding Claim 7, Carlson teaches receiving survey information associated with the content presented by the physical object, wherein the survey information includes information from users of other mobile devices that viewed the content presented by the physical object (See “In some embodiments, the system 200 can be passive and acquire user related data in an entirely automated process. In other embodiments, the system 200 can be interactive where a user can be queried to see if the user viewed specific content of the advertisement. The interactive system can further query the user to determine if the user wants additional information, coupons, or some sort of an upgrade, deal or promotion. The advertising facilitator 202, via the rewards program, may also provide an incentive for the user to provide feedback as to whether the user viewed specific content and the user's reaction to such content, such as a "thumbs up" and a "thumbs down" selection, or a question to see if the user knows exactly what is being advertised. A user could also request additional information that is related to the advertisement's content through the system 200” in ¶ 0046.).
Carlson does not expressly teach wherein determining the exposure probability further comprises determining the exposure probability based on a comparison of the received device location information to the received object placement information and the received survey information.
However, Lindstrom teaches wherein determining the exposure probability further comprises determining the exposure probability based on a comparison of the received device location information to the received object placement information and the received survey information (See “In some instances, a media research company can recruit panel members that are surveyed or tracked to determine advertisement/informational media to which each panel member was exposed. For example, if a panel member indicates that he or she visited a particular area, it may be concluded that the panel member was exposed to an advertisement or signage displayed in that area. The survey results or location tracking information can then be processed to determine the number of exposure instances for each advertisement or signage that is part of a media research study. The panel member exposures can then be used to infer the number of exposures to the generic public for each advertisement or signage. These exposure numbers can be used by product manufacturers, service providers, and advertisers to better market their products” in ¶ 0003 and “To determine the duration of exposure to each of the media 110a-h, a metering entity may provide a predetermined typical duration of stay or dwell time for a typical person that visits the fitness environment 100. In some example implementations, different predetermined typical durations or dwell times may be provided for each of the different areas 102, 104, 106, and 108 of the fitness environment. For example, a predetermined typical dwell time of a person in the foyer 102 may be thirty seconds, while a predetermined typical dwell time of a person in the cardio area 104 may be thirty minutes. The predetermined typical durations of stay or dwell times can be determined based on responses to survey questionnaires via which people are asked to provide the amounts of times they spent in particular ones of the areas 102, 104, 106, and 108 during one or more typical exercise sessions. This technique for determining predetermined typical durations of stay or dwell times may be used in connection with any other environments described below in connection with FIGS. 2-4 and or any other environment for which the example methods and apparatus described herein are used to monitor audience exposure to media. In the illustrated example of FIG. 1, the predetermined typical dwell times or durations of stay can be used in connection with transaction data collected using the card swipe station 112, the people counters 116a-d, and/or survey questionnaires to determine durations of exposure to the media 110a-h” in ¶ 0029.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Carlson and Lindstrom to utilize survey data from others to calculate exposure probability. The motivation, as shown in Lindstrom, is to “infer the number of exposures to the generic public for each advertisement or signage.”
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson in view of Mello and Fitzgerald, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0339140 (“Pokorny”).
Regarding Claim 11, Carlson teaches receiving object placement information associated with content presented by a physical object at the certain geographic location comprises receiving information identifying lat-long coordinates of the physical object (See “defining a sign utilizing a locus of points in three-dimensional space, wherein the locus of points defines a plane, the plane having latitudinal and longitudinal coordinates” in claim 5.).
Carlson does not expressly teach receiving information identifying a facing angle of the content presented by the physical object.
However, Pokorny teaches receiving information identifying a facing angle of the content presented by the physical object (See “Similarly, the orientation of the asset 102 informs an analysis of which lines of sight are more valuable based on angles of view for a consumer” in ¶ 0024, “From a planning perspective, different location angles may be tested to determine the effect on visibility of the asset 102 to potential consumers. The exposure value assessment system enables the identification of the azimuth of the asset 102 by permits quick angle to travel segment 104 analysis” in ¶ 0029, and “For example, the transport information and the viewshed 108 may be filtered such that the viewshed 108 is restricted to a certain or optimum viewing angle of the asset 102 by a consumer” in ¶ 0035.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Carlson and Pokorny to receive facing angle of the content. The motivation, as shown in Pokorny, is to determine the effect on visibility of the asset to potential customers.
Regarding Claim 12, Carlson teaches receiving object placement information associated with content presented by a physical object at the certain geographic location comprises receiving information identifying lat-long coordinates of the physical object (See “defining a sign utilizing a locus of points in three-dimensional space, wherein the locus of points defines a plane, the plane having latitudinal and longitudinal coordinates” in claim 5.).
Carlson does not expressly teach receiving information identifying an estimated viewshed for the content presented by the physical object.
However, Pokorny teaches receiving information identifying an estimated viewshed for the content presented by the physical object (See “A viewshed is generated based on the location information and the digital elevation model data. Exposure value information is generated by intersecting the viewshed with transport information” in the abstract and “From the digital elevation model and the location information for the OOH asset, a viewshed is created. Stated differently, using location information for the OOH asset, the digital elevation model may be processed to determine where the location point connects to all other points in the digital elevation model, as limited by a radius. A line of sight is the viewshed along "one-line," while the viewshed represents the combination of all lines of sight for the OOH asset” in ¶ 0017.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Carlson and Pokorny to receive viewshed for the content. The motivation, as shown in Pokorny, is to utilize viewshed information to determine exposure value information.
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson in view of Fitzgerald.
Regarding Claim 15, Carlson teaches a system comprising:
a device location module that receives device location information associated with a mobile device positioned at a certain geographic location (See “the data processing apparatus or system 100 can be configured as a device such as a Smart Phone or other computing device. System 100 as depicted in FIG. 1 can include, in some embodiments, a wearable brain activity-sensing device or module 102 and an eye tracking device or module 103 that can monitor the relative direction of an eyeball of an individual with respect to a relative direction of signage that is in the field of view of the eyeball” in ¶ 0023, “System 100 can additionally include processor 112 for processing and correlating the user, content, location, surveillance, direction, velocity and field of view data collected by the system sensors such as from the surveillance module 104, eye tracking module 103, brain activity-sensing module 102 and the location detection system 116. The location detection system 116 can include at least one sensor that detects the location and velocity of the system 100 or the user, relative to the earth” in ¶ 0027, “Such systems can detect location and velocity with a cellular communications system using tower directions and a process know as triangulation in a network location system, such as a wireless local area network location system, a GPS system, or a beacon type system, for example” in ¶ 0028, and “The location detection module 116 can continue collecting data regarding the individual's location as that individual moves in relation to signs and specific media content. The location information can be collected and stored in the individual's mobile communications device, which may then be transmitted to a server 124 operated by a service provider at a remote location for processing” in ¶ 0034.);
a placement information module that receives object placement information associated with content presented by a physical object at the certain geographic location (See “A database can store the locus of points that define the plane of the sign as it relates to coordinates, or a street addressed on the earth” in ¶ 0058 and “Because the signage locations can be stored in a sign location database as a locus of points, in addition to street addresses of the signs, the location detection system 116 of the system 100 can locate and transmit the signage location using data contained in the aforementioned sign location database. A remote computer server can then compute the locus of points that define the sign and the locus of coordinates that define the user field of view. The server can then determine if the sign is within the user's field of view. A sign's elevation data can be determined using many different methods, including using elevation data acquired by the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM), the Aster Global Digital Elevation Model (Aster GDEM), or the GTOPO30 Global Digital Elevation Model (DEM), and so forth” in ¶ 0059.); and
an exposure determination module that determines an exposure probability that is based on a comparison of the received device location information to the received object placement information (See “The user's impressions or exposure to signage content can then be determined by server 124 to correlate information obtained from the eye-tracking module 100 and from sign location/content database 128. The sign location/content can track what content is on what sign during a specific time period. The eye-tracking module 103 can be co-located with many different location, direction and velocity sensors. Information provided by these sensors can be correlated with a signage location detection system or data in the database 128 to correlate and provide positive information about the signage information viewed by the user” in ¶ 0031 and “determining a probability that the user views the at least one sign utilizing parameters comprising the location of the sign(s), the location of the user, the field of view of the user; and/or the direction of the field of view of the user” in ¶ 0074.),
wherein determining the exposure probability comprises: determining a dwell duration based upon the viewshed characteristics of the physical object at least upon one or more of GPS data, accelerometer data, or gyroscope data collected from the mobile device; and when the dwell duration exceeds a threshold time period, increasing the exposure probability (See “determining when the locus of points defining the sign(s) and the locus of points defined by the field of view intersect, determining a time frame of the intersection of the locus of points, and determining the content present on the sign(s) during the time frame” in ¶ 0077, “the location of the field of view can be detected utilizing one or more of the following: a Global Position Satellite receiver” in ¶ 0080, and “determining a probability, by executing a program instruction in a wearable data-processing apparatus, that the user views the at least one sign utilizing parameters comprising: a dwell time; the location of the at least one sign; the location of the user; the field of view of the user; and the direction of the field of view of the user” in claim 3.).
Carlson does not expressly teach wherein the viewshed characteristic is determined based on a density of structures within a surrounding geography of the physical object.
However, Fitzgerald teaches wherein the viewshed characteristic is determined based on a density of structures within a surrounding geography of the physical object (See “Referring again to table 346 shown in FIG. 19, advertisements 280a and 280b have designated distances of 100 feet, advertisement 280c has a designated distance of 200 feet, and advertisement 280g has a designated distance of 500 feet. The other advertisements are not represented in FIG. 19 and may have the same or different designated distances. As shown in map 240 of FIG. 10, advertisements 280a and 280b are relatively close to various intersections and, thus, may be less visible at further distances. Also, the existence of trees, buildings and other obstructions may limit visibility of these advertisements from further distances. Advertisement 280c may be substantially large and thus visible from the greater distance of 200 feet. Advertisement 280g may be large and visible from the even greater distance of 500 feet. Of course, the distances provided are for illustrative purposes only. In any event, distances for outdoor advertisements may take multiple factors into account, such as their size, general visibility, nearby obstructions, including trees, buildings, etc., proximity and density of adjacent signs and other viewable elements, and other factors” in ¶ 0161.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Carlson and Fitzgerald to consider structure density within the surroundings when determining viewshed. The motivation, as shown in Fitzgerald, is to utilize such information to determine what advertisements/physical objects are visible at what distances. Any obstruction affects the viewshed, such as trees, buildings, etc., as described in Fitzgerald.
Regarding Claim 17, Carlson further teaches exposure determination module determines the exposure probability as a function of the received device location information and the received object placement information, as L_exposure= F(EXPOSURE |Pu, Bi); where L_exposure is the exposure probability, Pu is a set of location trace characteristics for the mobile device, and Bi is a set of placement characteristics of the content presented by the physical object (See “The user's impressions or exposure to signage content can then be determined by server 124 to correlate information obtained from the eye-tracking module 100 and from sign location/content database 128. The sign location/content can track what content is on what sign during a specific time period. The eye-tracking module 103 can be co-located with many different location, direction and velocity sensors. Information provided by these sensors can be correlated with a signage location detection system or data in the database 128 to correlate and provide positive information about the signage information viewed by the user” in ¶ 0031 and “determining a probability that the user views the at least one sign utilizing parameters comprising the location of the sign(s), the location of the user, the field of view of the user; and/or the direction of the field of view of the user” in ¶ 0074.).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,817,898. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim would have been obvious over the claims under examination.
Claim 3, 4, and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 10,817,898. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim would have been obvious over the claims under examination.
Claims 5 and 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 10,817,898. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim would have been obvious over the claims under examination.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 10,817,898. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim would have been obvious over the claim under examination.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 10,817,898. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim would have been obvious over the claim under examination.
Claims 9 and 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 10,817,898. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim would have been obvious over the claims under examination.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 10,817,898. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim would have been obvious over the claim under examination.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 10,817,898. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim would have been obvious over the claims under examination.
Claims 13, 23, and 25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,817,898. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim would have been obvious over the claims under examination.
Claims 14 and 24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 10,817,898. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim would have been obvious over the claims under examination.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 10,817,898. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim would have been obvious over the claim under examination.
Claims 1 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,961,116. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim would have been obvious over the claims under examination.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,961,116. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim would have been obvious over the claim under examination.
Claims 3 and 8-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,961,116. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim would have been obvious over the claims under examination.
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,961,116. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim would have been obvious over the claims under examination.
Claims 5 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,961,116. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim would have been obvious over the claims under examination.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,961,116. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim would have been obvious over the claim under examination.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,961,116. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim would have been obvious over the claim under examination.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,961,116. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim would have been obvious over the claim under examination.
Claims 13, 23, and 25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,961,116. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim would have been obvious over the claims under examination.
Claims 14 and 24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,961,116. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim would have been obvious over the claims under examination.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,961,116. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim would have been obvious over the claim under examination.
Conclusion
Claims 4 and 16 are not found in the prior art. More specifically, “determining that a heading of the mobile device with respect to a presentation angle of the content presented by the physical object is within an angle of 90 degrees” is not found in the prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEREDITH A LONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3196. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6.
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 on 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.
/MEREDITH A LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights