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 is a Non-Final Office Action in response to application 18/695,357 entitled "SERVER AND PROGRAM" originally on March 26, 2024, with claims 1 to 6 pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 26, 2024, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
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.
Claim 1 as the limitation reads:
“acquisition unit that acquires…”
“management unit that manages…”
“(first/second) calculation unit that calculates…”
“modification unit that modifies…”
Claim 6 as the limitation reads:
“acquisition unit that acquires …”
“management unit that manages…”
“(first/second) calculation unit that calculates…”
“modification unit that modifies…”
It is required that Applicant sufficiently disclose both the hardware, e.g. general purpose computer, and associated algorithms for all specialized functions (see MPEP 2181(I]D)(B) and “Examining Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitations for Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112” PowerPoint slides 18-19, published 02/20/2019, available http://ptoweb.uspto.gov/patents/exTrain/112.html).
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, which is described in at least:
[0012] a management unit 12 of the server
[0035] the server 10 includes an acquisition unit 11, a management unit 12, a first calculation unit 13, a second calculation unit 14, a modification unit 15, a revision unit 16, a determination unit 17, … and an instruction unit
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-ATA 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Please see MPEP 2106 for additional information regarding Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 1-6 are directed to a method/process, machine/apparatus, (article of) manufacture, or composition of matter, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claim 1 recites:
“…comprising: an acquisition unit that acquires operating information and location information…;
a management unit that manages the user, a prescribed time, and a prescribed area in association;
a first calculation unit that calculates, based on the operating information and the location information….an integrated value of a time of working of the user in the prescribed area within the prescribed time;
a second calculation unit that calculates, based on the integrated value, a score for the user; and
a modification unit that modifies, based on the score, at least one of a period of repayment, an amount of repayment, or interest rate.”
These limitations clearly relate to managing transactions/interactions between consumer and/or financial service provider. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructing to “a modification unit that modifies,... a period of repayment, an amount of repayment, or interest rate” recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[A server]: merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
[on a vehicle of a user] [on the vehicle]: generally linking to automotive technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads:
[0120] Provided may be a program for causing a computer to perform each piece of processing that the server 10 performs.... the program on a computer. ...Such a non-transitory recording medium may be, but is not particularly limited to, a recording medium such as a CD-ROM, a DVD-ROM, or a hard disk.
[0022] The vehicle 1 may be a vehicle having an internal combustion engine or may be any type of vehicle, ...may be any vehicle having wheels and thus may be, but is not particularly limited to, for example, a two-wheeled vehicle, a three-wheeled vehicle, or a six-wheeled vehicle, instead of an ordinary four-wheeled vehicle.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims recite additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recited additional elements of
Claims 2-5:
“server”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For support from the Applicant’s Specification, see the analysis as applied to Independent Claim 1 (Step 2A-Prong 2) earlier. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the dependent claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Independent Claim 6 recites:
“A program stored…:
an acquisition unit that acquires operating information and location information …;
a management unit that manages the user, a prescribed time, and a prescribed area in association;
a first calculation unit that calculates, based on the operating information and the location information …an integrated value of a time of working of the user in the prescribed area within the prescribed time;
a second calculation unit that calculates, based on the integrated value, a score for the user; and
a modification unit that modifies, based on the score, at least one of a period of repayment, an amount of repayment, or interest rate.”
These limitations clearly relate to managing transactions/interactions between consumer and/or financial service provider. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructing to “a modification unit that modifies,... a period of repayment, an amount of repayment, or interest rate” recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[on a non-transitory computer-readable medium for causing a computer to function as a server, the server comprising]: merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
[on a vehicle of a user] [on the vehicle]: generally linking to automotive technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads:
[0120] Provided may be a program for causing a computer to perform each piece of processing that the server 10 performs.... the program on a computer. ...Such a non-transitory recording medium may be, but is not particularly limited to, a recording medium such as a CD-ROM, a DVD-ROM, or a hard disk.
[0022] The vehicle 1 may be a vehicle having an internal combustion engine or may be any type of vehicle, ...may be any vehicle having wheels and thus may be, but is not particularly limited to, for example, a two-wheeled vehicle, a three-wheeled vehicle, or a six-wheeled vehicle, instead of an ordinary four-wheeled vehicle.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 6 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable overCao (“SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ON-DEMAND TRANSPORTATION”, U.S. Publication Number: 20160364678 A1), in view of Rippel (“COMPUTERIZED SYSEM AND METHOD FOR DATA ACQUISTION AND APPLICATION OF DISPARATE DATA TO TWO STAGE BAYESIAN NETWORKS TO GENERATE CENTRALLY MAINTAINED PORTABLE DRIVING SCORE DATA”, U.S. Patent Number: 10210479 B2).
Regarding Claim 1,
Cao teaches,
A server comprising: an acquisition unit that acquires operating information and location information on a vehicle of a user;
(Cao [0123] to the rider hailing server to analyze package delivery locations and deliver routes, determine when a ride-sharing vehicle may be able to combine its trip
Cao [0070] the location determination can receive global positioning system (GPS) data from location-based/geo-aware resources of the computing device)
a management unit that manages the user, a prescribed time, and a prescribed area in association;
(Cao [0022] a route planned by an exemplary transportation system that handles car-renting and/or ride-sharing service
Cao [0009] a rider computer configured to receive a route start point and a route end point;... retrieve data including at least one attribute of each of one or more possible route waypoints; ...determine a cost based one or more route parameters, and wherein the ride-sharing vehicle is selected if it meets a least-cost determination.
Cao [0010] determining if a selected driver has an open time slot for the user; and scheduling an appointment time)
a first calculation unit that calculates, based on the operating information and the location information on the vehicle, an integrated value of a time of working of the user in the prescribed area within the prescribed time;
(Cao [0072] Using the information maintained about the services and the service providers, the on-demand service system can provide relevant information... information about costs for the service, available service options... or other details (e.g., available times...).
Cao [0010] determining vehicle schedule availability...determining if a selected driver has an open time slot for the user; and scheduling an appointment time
Cao [0104] A route match component determines a route 108 that corresponds to a location 170, a proposed pickup location 172 and a destination
Cao [0097] car owner can designate a boundary for the vehicle)
a modification unit that modifies, based on the score, at least one of a period of repayment, an amount of repayment, or interest rate.
(Cao [0038] FIG. 13 is a diagram illustrates generally an insurance rate adjustment component
Cao [0261] server includes a rate adjustment component 4804 that in real time can determine the various rates
Cao [0269] the rate adjustment component 804 can be configured to evaluate the insurance rate information against current vehicle operation by the driver
Cao [0046] a “credit score” refers to a rating or expression of a person's creditworthiness that is used by lenders to access the likelihood that a person will repay his or her debts.
Cao [0068] system can be used for financing purchases of vehicle by being part of driver pool.
Cao [0184] data in the file records may be used as input to descriptive and predictive models to determine how likely borrowers are to repay debt.... the models may be used to affect credit scores
Cao [0014] for financing for members ... with each member to make the predetermined monthly payment... and on a monthly basis, identifying at least one member who is eligible to receive an award, and distributing the award to that member.)
Cao does not teach a second calculation unit that calculates, based on the integrated value, a score for the user;
Rippel teaches,
a second calculation unit that calculates, based on the integrated value, a score for the user;
(Rippel [Col 2, Lines 28-30] nationally recognized driver score to be assigned and maintained by a central driver rating agency )
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle repayment monitoring of Cao to incorporate the driver scoring teachings of Rippel for a “driver score to be assigned.” (Rippel [Col 2, Lines 28-30]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. driver scoring) to a known concept (i.e. vehicle repayment monitoring ) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “a score indicative of the driver's driving practices.” Rippel [Col 2, Lines 13-14])
Regarding Claim 2,
Cao and Rippel teach the vehicle repayment monitoring of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Cao does not teach wherein the second calculation unit calculates the score for the user, further based on credit information on the user.
Rippel teaches,
wherein the second calculation unit calculates the score for the user, further based on credit information on the user.
(Rippel [Claim 1; Col 13, Lines 64-66] generating, by the driver rating computer system based on application of .... the credit scores data)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle repayment monitoring of Cao to incorporate the driver scoring teachings of Rippel for a “driver score to be assigned.” (Rippel [Col 2, Lines 28-30]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. driver scoring) to a known concept (i.e. vehicle repayment monitoring ) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “a score indicative of the driver's driving practices.” Rippel [Col 2, Lines 13-14])
Regarding Claim 3,
Cao and Rippel teach the vehicle repayment monitoring of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Cao does not teach the second calculation unit calculates the score for the user, further based on history of road manners of the user.
Rippel teaches,
the second calculation unit calculates the score for the user, further based on history of road manners of the user.
(Rippel [Claim 1; Col 13, Lines 64-66] generating, by the driver rating computer system based on application of the driver behavior scores data....and the public record scores data
Rippel [Col 5, Lines 20-25] public record driving score algorithm may be based on a regression analysis of historical records that determines the likelihood that a driver will be involved in a vehicle accident)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle repayment monitoring of Cao to incorporate the driver scoring teachings of Rippel for a “driver score to be assigned.” (Rippel [Col 2, Lines 28-30]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. driver scoring) to a known concept (i.e. vehicle repayment monitoring ) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “a score indicative of the driver's driving practices.” Rippel [Col 2, Lines 13-14])
Regarding Claim 4,
Cao and Rippel teach the vehicle repayment monitoring of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Cao teaches,
further comprising a determination unit that determines, based on the score, a service providable to the user.
(Cao [0284] recommendation engine can recommend different insurance products that save money for the driver, or alternatively can even recommend different insurance companies to save money.)
Regarding Claim 5,
Cao and Rippel teach the vehicle repayment monitoring of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Cao teaches,
further comprising a revision unit that revises, in response to fulfillment of a prescribed condition, at least either the integrated value or the score.
(Cao [0279] driver may complete their journey and data gathering and analysis is completed. In an embodiment, at 5314 the driver can be presented with new insurance rates based upon the data gathered while they were driving the vehicle...a change in the driver's insurance policy can be presented ...where the driver can view their respective rates/gathered information/analysis system)
Claim 6 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Prior Art Cited But Not Applied
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Chan (“DRIVER PROFILES BASED UPON DRIVING BEHAVIOR WITH PASSENGERS”, U.S. Patent Number: 10832261 B1) detecting and acting upon driver behavior while driving with passengers, telematics data collected by electronic subsystems of a vehicle and/or a mobile electronic device is received. The telematics data is analyzed to identify time periods during which a driver drove with passengers, and identify driving behaviors of the driver during those times. Based upon the identified driving behaviors, a driver profile associated with the driver is set or updated. The profile is transmitted to an entity that adjusts a credit rating of the driver, adjusts an insurance rating of the driver, reviews at least the portion of the profile in connection with a job sought by the driver, or offers a permanent or temporary credit in connection with a good or service offered by the entity. As a result, risk-averse drivers may be offered benefits or cost savings.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINEDU EKECHUKWU whose telephone number is (571)272-4493. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 10am to 4pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Christine Tran, can be reached on (571) 272-8103. 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.
/C.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3695
/CHRISTINE M Tran/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695