DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to applicant’s arguments/remarks and amendments filed on 03/30/2026. Claims 4, 8, 14, and 18 have been amended. No Claims have been cancelled. No Claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-21 are currently pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: data storage and a processor in claims 1-10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The limitations “a data storage and a processor” are interpreted to be one or more suitable processing devices or systems as detailed in Paragraphs 0088-0089 “the processor 112 may be implemented using central processing units (CPUs), graphics processing units (GPUs), field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), digital signal processors (DSPs), neural processing units (NPUs), quantum processing units (QPUs), microprocessors, controllers, and the like” and “The data storage 114 may be implemented using one or more suitable data storage devices or systems such as random-access memory (RAM), read only memory (ROM), flash memory, hard disk drives (HDDs), solid-state drives (SSDs), magnetic tape drives, optical disc drives, memory cards, and the like”.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more. The claim(s) (claims 1, 11, and 21) recite(s) receive telematics data and map data, define a search zone, identify a plurality of vehicle stop points, dynamically partition the search zone into a plurality of search subzones, identify one or more vehicle stop clusters, and identify vehicle stop zones.
The limitations of “define a search zone, identify a plurality of vehicle stop points, dynamically partition the search zone into a plurality of search subzones, identify one or more vehicle stop clusters, and identify vehicle stop zones”, 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. That is, other than reciting “a data storage and a processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a data storage and a processor” language, “define, and identify” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally identifying a vehicle stop zone based on collected data using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite additional elements, a data storage and a processor” to perform the recited steps. The data storage and the processor are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Regarding the additional limitation of “receive telematics data and map data, define a search zone”, the examiner submits that this limitation is insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (a processor) to perform the process. The receiving step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the define and identify steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a data storage and a processor to perform both the define and identify steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitation of “receive telematics data and map data” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background, Paragraphs 0003-0004 disclose “While telematics data may be used to gain insights about various aspects of the vehicles from which it is collected, the telematics data may also be used to provide insights about the area or areas within which the vehicles operate”. Furthermore, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-10, and 12-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 2-8, and 12-18 recite additional steps that fall under the mental process as recited above. Claims 9 and 19 recite a clustering algorithm. In view of the specification (Paragraph 0122), said clustering algorithm is may be a density-based clustering algorithm, such as, but not limited to, a Hierarchical Density-Based Spatial Clustering of Applications with Noise (HDBSCAN) algorithm and is viewed as a mathematical equation or calculation. Because said limitation implicitly recites performing mathematical calculations, the limitation falls within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. With respect to claims 10 and 20, the claims recite the additional elements of at least two processors. As discussed above, said additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, dependent claims 2-10, and 12-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1 and 11.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9-14, 16, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorum US 2018/0364063 A1 (the applicant submitted said reference in IDS filed on 10/10/2024 hence Dorum) in view of Hayot FR2926914A1 (the examiner has provided an English translation on 12/30/2025 and is relying upon, hence Hayot).
In re claims 1, 11, and 21, Dorum discloses a mapping system, method and computer program product to identify a parking lot from probe data (Abstract) and teaches the following:
at least one data storage operable to store at least telematics data and map data (Paragraphs 0033 “The mapping system 10 may receive probe data, directly or indirectly (such as from a database in which the probe data is stored prior to access by the mapping system), from a mobile device 14” and Paragraph 0034);
and at least one processor in communication with the at least one data storage, the at least one processor operable to (Fig.2, and Paragraph 0035):
define a search zone, using the map data, corresponding to a geographical area within which vehicle stop zones are to be identified (Fig.3, #40 and Paragraph 0040 “the processor 22 or the like, configured to associate probe data points with respective grid cells”);
identify, using the telematics data, a plurality of vehicle stop points located within the search zone (Paragraph 0040 “the probe data may be divided into a plurality of grid cells, each having a predetermined size and shape”, Fig.3, #42, Paragraph 0041 “probe heading density thus gathers the probes that are within a predefined area”), each of the vehicle stop points representing a location at which a vehicle stopped (Paragraph 0042 “probe data speed may be used to aid in distinguishing a parking vehicle from a driving vehicle” and “ a vehicle that is traveling at a low speed, which may be below a second, different threshold or the same threshold, may be considered likely to be parking or parked”);
partition the search zone into a plurality of search subzones based at least in part on a number of vehicle stop points present within the search zone (The claim doesn’t recite a specific criteria or a specific way to use the number of points in the partition process. The BRI of the claim is partitioning the search zone that contains all the stop points. Paragraph 0040 discloses “the probe data may be divided into a plurality of grid cells, each having a predetermined size and shape, such as a square shape with a side of a predetermined length, such as 5 meters, 10 meters of the like”);
within each search subzone, identify one or more vehicle stop clusters, each vehicle stop cluster comprising at least one of the vehicle stop points (Fig.3, #44, Paragraph 0050 “the parking likelihood for a respective grid cell satisfies a predefined threshold”, and Fig.3, #46, and Paragraph 0052 “cluster likely parking locations to identify parking lot clusters”, and Paragraph 0057 “the plurality of likely parking locations have been clustered as described above into a much smaller number of clusters of likely parking locations”);
and identify vehicle stop zones by combining vehicle stop clusters that share one or more of the vehicle stop points (Fig.3, #50, and Paragraph 0067 “merge parking lots having respective boundaries that overlap”)
However, Dorum discloses partition the search zone into a plurality of search subzones (Paragraph 0040 “a plurality of grid cells, each having a predetermined size and shape, such as a square shape with a side of a predetermined length, such as 5 meters, 10 meters of the like”) and as discussed above but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
dynamically partition the search zone into a plurality of search subzones based at least in part on a number of vehicle stop points present within the search zone
Nevertheless, Hayot discloses a geocoding method for a digital road network system for updating the coordinates of points of interest in the digital database (Paragraph 0001) and teaches the following:
dynamically partition the search zone into a plurality of search subzones based at least in part on a number of vehicle stop points present within the search zone (Page 1, Paragraph 0005 underlined section “N sub-areas whose size is optimized to spatially index the POIs of each of the sub-zones” and “carried out recursively”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Dorum reference to include generating smaller geographical sub-zones according to a reduction criterion, as taught by Hayot, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to optimize the management of hardware resources such as computing, memory, and data storage (Hayot, Page 1, Paragraph 0006 underlined section).
In re claims 2 and 12, Hayot teaches the following:
generating a plurality of initial search subzones; and adjusting an area of each initial search subzone such that each of the search subzones encompasses a number of vehicle stop points that is greater than or equal to a selected minimum number of vehicle stop points, less than or equal to a selected maximum number of vehicle stop points, or a combination thereof (Page 1, Paragraph 0005 underlined section “generating at each step smaller geographical sub-zones according to a reduction criterion CR until a stopping threshold SA is reached”; the motivation to combine has been provided above).
In re claims 3 and 13, Dorum teaches the following:
wherein the at least one processor is operable to combine the vehicle stop clusters that share one or more of the vehicle stop points by: generating a graph comprising a plurality of nodes (Paragraph 0052 “a weighted center of mass of the likely parking locations”) and edges (Paragraph 0056 “using a cluster center merge threshold to allow the center determined pursuant to the mean shift technique for subsequently considered grid cells to snap to an existing cluster center determined for previously considered grid cells if the centers are within the merge threshold, such as within 10 meters of one another”), wherein each node represents one of the vehicle stop clusters and each edge represents the sharing of the one or more vehicle stop points (Paragraph 0056); identifying one or more node groupings, each node grouping comprising a plurality of nodes that are interconnected by one or more edges (Paragraph 0056 “ a final cluster to have a minimum number of likely parking locations and/or a minimal shape extent, e.g., at least a minimum length of its principal axes as determined, for example, by PCA, a minimum circumference and/or a minimum surface area”); and generating, for each node grouping, one or more vehicle stop superclusters by combining the vehicle stop points of each of the vehicle stop clusters represented by the nodes of the node groupings (Paragraph 0052 “cluster likely parking locations to identify parking lot clusters”)
In re claims 4 and 14, Dorum teaches the following:
wherein the at least one processor is further operable to divide each of the one or more vehicle stop clusters into discrete vehicle stop clusters based on one or more boundaries spanned thereby (Paragraph 0005 “Since the cluster search is initiated from each grid cell, more than one grid cell may iterate to the same parking cluster center”, Fig.3, #50, Paragraph 0067 “identify parking lots for which the boundaries overlap one another”, and “combine the two or more parking lots into a single parking lot and to redefine the boundary of the resulting parking lot”.
In re claims 6 and 16, Dorum teaches the following:
wherein the at least one processor is further operable to identify the vehicle stop zones by generating, for each vehicle stop cluster, a bounding polygon encompassing the vehicle stop cluster (Paragraph 0068 “include the parking lot having the boundary determine pursuant to the deformable contour model”)
In re claims 9 and 19, Dorum teaches the following:
wherein the at least one processor is operable to identify the one or more vehicle stop clusters using a clustering algorithm (Fig.3, #46 and Paragraph 0052 “The clustering of likely parking locations may be performed in various manners including by application of a mean shift technique or a median shift technique to the likely parking locations in order to find a weighted center of mass of the likely parking locations”)
In re claims 10 and 20, Dorum teaches the following:
which is a multi-processor system in that the at least one processor comprises two or more processors, each of which is operable to perform one or more operations of the system (Fig. 1 and Paragraph 0026)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s arguments/remarks with respect to claim interpretation and that the terms “data storage” and “processor” should not be interpreted under 35 U.S.C 112(f), the examiner respectfully disagrees with that statement. The examiners will apply 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to a claim limitation if it meets the following 3-prong analysis. The terms “data storage” and “processor” are terms used as a substitute for "means" that are generic placeholders (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed functions, they recite a function and are not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Accordingly, the terms “data storage” and “processor” invoke 112(f). Nevertheless, the examiner’s interpretation of the terms lines up with applicant’s arguments because as recited above in Paragraph 5, The limitations “a data storage and a processor” are interpreted to be one or more suitable processing devices or systems as detailed in Paragraphs 0088-0089 “the processor 112 may be implemented using central processing units (CPUs), graphics processing units (GPUs), field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), digital signal processors (DSPs), neural processing units (NPUs), quantum processing units (QPUs), microprocessors, controllers, and the like” and “The data storage 114 may be implemented using one or more suitable data storage devices or systems such as random-access memory (RAM), read only memory (ROM), flash memory, hard disk drives (HDDs), solid-state drives (SSDs), magnetic tape drives, optical disc drives, memory cards, and the like”.
With respect to applicant’s arguments/remarks with respect to the rejection of claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. 101 and that the claims recite subject matter may involve hundreds of thousands or even millions of data points and cannot practically be performed in the human mind, the examiner’s respectfully disagrees with that statement. As recited above, the limitations of defining, identifying, partitioning, and combining, in the context of the claims, encompass the user mentally identifying a vehicle stop zone based on collected data using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion irrelevant of the amount of data. The claims take advantage of the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, rather than the patented method itself to process the large amount of data. Accordingly, the claims are not directed to an improvement in the way computers operate in processing the large amount of data.
With respect to applicant’s arguments/remarks that the claims integrate the concept into a practical application by reciting a specific, computer-implemented geospatial analytics system/method that solves a technical problem in telematics fleet analytics: scalable identification of vehicle stop zones from large, unevenly distributed stop-point datasets, the examiner respectfully disagrees with that statement. As recited above, it appears that the claims are using any suitable technique to perform the dynamic partitioning of the search zone (see Paragraph 00118). Accordingly, the dynamic partitioning of data is not indicative of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application because it is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, i.e. using a computer (see Paragraph 00120). Paragraph 00120 discloses that the improvement is coming from implementing the systems and methods of the present disclosure across a plurality of processors (e.g., two or more of each of the processors 112, 132, and 152), a plurality of cores of each processor, or a combination thereof to provide additional advantages such as, but not limited to, increased throughput (i.e., more data may be processed in a given amount of time), increased reliability (e.g., if one processor fails, the systems and methods and the present disclosure may still be implemented using the remaining processors), and the like and not from the patented method itself. Accordingly, the claims are not eligible.
With respect to applicant’s arguments/remarks with respect to the rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 9-14, 16, and 19-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorum and Hayot and that Hayot is non-analogous art and therefore cannot properly be applied in the obviousness analysis, the examiner respectfully disagrees with that statement. In response to applicant's argument that Hayot is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the dynamic partitioning of the claimed invention may advantageously allow for efficient processing of large-scale telematics data. As recited above, the examiner relies on Dorum that teaches the partitioning process. The examiner relies on Hayot to show that the portioning process could be dynamic and the reason to combine lines up with the gist of the invention, i.e. advantageously allow for efficient processing of large-scale telematics data (See Hayot, Paragraph 0006 “invention makes it possible to optimize the management of hardware resources such as computing, memory and data storage means, in order to make possible in a reasonable time the re-geocoding of databases. with several million POIs”).
Conclusion
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 RAMI KHATIB whose telephone number is (571)270-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Erin M Piateski can be reached at 571-270 7429. 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.
/RAMI KHATIB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights