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 .
Priority
Examiner acknowledges that the instant application is a National Stage Application under 35 U.S.C. 371 with relation to PCT Application No. SG2021/050622, filed 10/14/2021. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s communications filed on 12/8/2025 have been considered.
Claims 4 and 15 have been canceled herein.
Claims 1, 5, 9, 11-12, and 16-18 have been amended.
Claims 19-22 have been newly added.
Claims 1-3, 5-14 and 16-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 1-3, 5-14 and 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, the claims must be directed to one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03. Claims 1-3, 5-14 and 19-22 are directed towards a machine. Claims 16-18 are directed towards a process. Therefore, claims 1-3, 5-14 and 16-22 are directed to one of the four statutory categories (Step 1: YES, regarding claims 1-3, 5-14 and 16-22).
Under Step 2A of the MPEP, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception. See MPEP 2106.04. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry.
Under Prong 1, it is determined whether the claim recites a judicial exception. In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception.
Taking Claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas, including:
A car dealership comprising: a storage configurable to maintain a record for each of a plurality of cars for sale, the plurality of cars being located at different geographical sites and each record including a geographic location of a corresponding one of the plurality of cars; and
retriev[ing] at least one record from the storage;
provid[ing] a user with the at least one retrieved record;
receiv[ing] information from the user indicating interest in viewing at least one car corresponding to the at least one retrieved record; and
send an instruction to unlock the at least one car.
Claim 16 recites the same limitations believed to be abstract as recited in claim 1, and additionally recites the following:
A method of dealing in cars, the method comprising: locating cars at different geographic locations;
maintaining a storage having a record for each of the cars, the record including a geographic location of the car;
retrieving at least one record from the storage;
providing a user with the at least one retrieved record;
receiving from the user information indicating interest in viewing at least one car corresponding to the at least one retrieved record; and
sending an instruction… to unlock the at least one car.
Claim 1, as exemplary, recites the abstract idea of providing access to products. These recited limitations fall within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities" Grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04.
Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1 and 16 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Under Prong 2, it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Claim 1 recites additional elements beyond the judicial exception(s), including A system comprising: a database; at least one key fob actuator; and a server operable to: provide a user device with information; and send an instruction remotely to a key fob actuator located within the at least one car to automatically unlock the at least one car by actuating an unlock key of a key fob of the at least one car. Claim 16 recites the same additional elements as recited in claim 1, and additionally recites actuating, by the key fob actuator, an unlock key of a key fob of the at least one car to automatically unlock the at least one car.
These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. As such, these computer-related limitations are not found to be sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 1 and 16 specifying that the abstract idea of providing access to products is executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer. As such, under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claims 1 and 16 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Since claims 1 and 16 recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claims 1 and 16 are “directed to” an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES). Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Next, under Step 2B, the instant claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements of A system comprising: a database; a key fob actuator; and a server operable to: provide a user device with information; send an instruction remotely to a key fob actuator located within the at least one car to automatically unlock the at least one car by actuating an unlock key of a key fob of the at least one car; and actuating, by the key fob actuator, an unlock key of a key fob of the at least one car to automatically unlock the at least one car amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. Therefore when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-14 and 17-22, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. As for dependent claims 3, 6-13, 15, and 17-21, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in independent claims 1 and 16. Therefore, claims 3, 6-13, 15, and 17-21 are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claims 2, 5, 14 and 22, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in independent claims 1 and 16. Additionally, they recite the following additional limitations:
wherein the user device comprises a mobile device, and wherein the server is further operable to receive a location of the mobile device and wherein retrieving at least one record from the database comprises retrieving at least one record from the database based on the location of the mobile device;
wherein the instruction to automatically unlock the at least one car comprises a short messaging service (SMS) message sent to the key fob actuator; and
wherein the server is further operable to send an instruction to a locking device to automatically lock the at least one car.
The additional elements of a mobile device, a short messaging service (SMS) message, and a locking device are all recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than instructions to apply the judicial exception in a generic technological environment. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, under the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1-3, 5-14 and 16-22 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 9-11 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Tang (US 10,589,720 B1) in view of newly cited U.S Patent Application No. 2016/0098870 A1 to Bergerhoff et al., hereinafter Bergerhoff.
Regarding Claim 1, Tang discloses A car dealership system comprising ([Col 20 Ln 48-65] a method for facilitating automated vehicle access in a retail environment, utilizing modern technology to provide a user with access to a vehicle without the need for an in-person salesman, while managing inventory and vehicle access… see [Col 4 Ln 1-37] computing device 101):
a database configurable to maintain a record for each of a plurality of cars for sale, the plurality of cars being located at different geographical sites and each record including a geographic location of a corresponding one of the plurality of cars ([Col 26 Ln 26-38] the system stores locations of vehicles and stores database entries for the parking spot identifiers and corresponding spots, as well as a vehicle profile 358 including a location or parking spot for the vehicle);
at least one key fob actuator ([Col 12 Ln 36-45] The server system 352 may include one or more APIs described below. The server system 352 may include, e.g., an API for an application for unlocking vehicles using a mobile device (e.g., vehicle unlock API 368)) (The server system includes the software instructions/API for allowing users to unlock vehicles using a mobile device); and
a server operable to: retrieve at least one record from the database ([Col 20 Ln 66-Col 21 Ln 12] The application may obtain the list from the server, which supply a list of inventory within a predetermined proximity of the mobile device… see [Col 15 Ln 56-63] the server may look up or retrieve the vehicle key ID linked or associated with the vehicle from these databases);
provide a user device with the at least one retrieved record ([Col 20 Ln 66-Col 21 Ln 12] At step 505, The user may access an application (e.g., application 316) to obtain a list of available vehicles for lease or purchase. The application may obtain the list from the server, which supply a list of inventory within a predetermined proximity of the mobile device… see [Col 20 Ln 48-65] An application (e.g., application 316) of a mobile device (e.g., mobile device 302) may facilitate a user accessing the vehicle);
receive information from the user device indicating interest in viewing at least one car corresponding to the at least one retrieved record ([Col 20 Ln 67-Col 21 Ln 12] At step 505, the system may authenticate a user who wishes to view a vehicle for purchase; [Col 21 Ln 26-38] At step 515, the system may capture image data indicating a vehicle, captured by the user’s mobile device); and
send an instruction remotely to automatically unlock the at least one car by actuating an unlock key of a key fob of the at least one car ([Col 10 Ln 61-67] an electronic sensor from the mobile device 302 may capture data from the physical marker 342 on the vehicle, and cause the vehicle to unlock or lock. The vehicle 334 may include a locking system 340 that can electronically and/or mechanically cause the vehicle to unlock or lock based on signals received, e.g., from the mobile device 302; [Col 12 Ln 36-45] The server system 352 may include, e.g., an API for an application for unlocking vehicles using a mobile device (e.g., vehicle unlock API 368)) (Applicant’s specification describes a key fob as “sending a wireless signal to the electronics of the car to unlock doors”, (see at least [0042]), and therefore the user’s mobile device has been interpreted as the key fob, since it is performing the commands of a key fob);
But does not explicitly disclose sending an instruction to a key fob actuator located within the at least one car to automatically unlock the at least one car.
Bergerhoff, on the other hand, teaches sending an instruction to a key fob actuator located within the at least one car to automatically unlock the at least one car ([0015] the client device includes a Radio Frequency (RF) signal transmitter for commanding the pre-installed access control system of a vehicle to perform actions such as unlocking doors; [0103-0105] a user may request execution of a command, such as unlocking a vehicle, using the user interface of his handheld device, and the RF signal transmitter of the device sends a telegram to the receiver circuit in the vehicle which in turn executes the commands; [0146] actuation commands sent by the RF signal transmitter include unlocking doors).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system, as taught by Tang, sending an instruction to a key fob actuator located within the at least one car to automatically unlock the at least one car, as taught by Bergerhoff, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tang, to include the teachings of Bergerhoff, in order to allow for programming of key devices into almost any vehicle without requiring changes to the vehicle (Bergerhoff, [0025][0090]).
Regarding Claim 2, Tang and Bergerhoff teach the limitations of claim 1.
Tang further discloses wherein the user device comprises a mobile device ([Col 20 Ln 48-65] An application (e.g., application 316) of a mobile device (e.g., mobile device 302) may facilitate a user accessing the vehicle), and
wherein the server is further operable to receive a location of the mobile device ([Col 20 Ln 66-Col 21 Ln 12] The application may obtain the list from the server, which supply a list of inventory within a predetermined proximity of the mobile device… see [Col 7 Ln 66-Col 8 Ln 31] sensors 304 within the mobile device include a location sensor 306 (GPS) to determine a location of the mobile device; [Col 11 Ln 49-59] the database of parking spots 362 may store identifiers of parking spots within a predetermined distance from a designated address or location. The address or location may be based on the location of a user, which can be found using a location sensor, e.g., of the mobile device 302) and
wherein retrieving at least one record from the database comprises retrieving at least one record from the database based on the location of the mobile device ([Col 20 Ln 66-Col 21 Ln 12] The application may obtain the list from the server, which supply a list of inventory within a predetermined proximity of the mobile device; [Col 22 Ln 7-24] the location of the user may also be used to confirm that the intended vehicle is to be unlocked (e.g., by compiling a list of nearby vehicles to be cross-referenced against an image of a vehicle).
Regarding Claim 3, Tang and Bergerhoff teach the limitations of claim 2.
Tang further discloses wherein retrieving at least one record from the database based on the location of the mobile device comprises retrieving at least one record from the database having a geographic location closest to the location of the mobile device ([Col 20 Ln 66-Col 21 Ln 12] At step 505, The user may access an application (e.g., application 316) to obtain a list of available vehicles for lease or purchase. The application may obtain the list from the server, which supply a list of inventory within a predetermined proximity of the mobile device).
Regarding Claim 6, Tang and Bergerhoff teach the limitations of claim 1.
Tang further discloses wherein receiving information from the user device comprises receiving information obtainable from a label attached to the car using the user device ([Col 21 Ln 26-Col 22 Ln 6] a mobile device (e.g., mobile device 302) may capture (e.g., using an image sensor 308), a physical marker corresponding to a vehicle… see [Col 6 Ln 49-56] a physical marker may be located on the vehicle, and may be stationary, such as a sticker).
Regarding Claim 7, Tang and Bergerhoff teach the limitations of claim 6.
Tang further discloses wherein the label comprises a QR code ([Col 21 Ln 26-Col 22 Ln 6] the physical marker may comprise a matrix barcode (e.g., QR code…)).
Regarding Claim 9, Tang and Bergerhoff teach the limitations of claim 1.
Tang further discloses wherein the server is further operable to receive information of a user using the user device after receiving information from the user device of at least one car corresponding to the at least one retrieved record ([Col 15 Ln 23-34] At step 422, the server may receive the pending user request from a mobile device of a user (e.g., mobile device 302) to access a vehicle secured by a vehicle key; [Col 15 Ln 35-55] At step 424, the server may initially authenticate the user… Authentication information may be received by the mobile device, processed, and sent to the server).
Regarding Claim 10, Tang and Bergerhoff teach the limitations of claim 9.
Tang further discloses wherein the server is further operable to send to the user device the user's queue position before the user's turn to access the at least one car after receiving the user's information ([Col 15 Ln 23-34] the user may be able to select a desired vehicle for test driving via an application on the user's device, and send a request to be able to test drive with limited human interaction. The sent request may be an electronic signal that may be placed in a queue of pending requests. Pending requests may be taken out of the queue as they are fulfilled (e.g., after a user has successfully returned the vehicle keys of the vehicle that the user has requested to test drive)).
Regarding Claim 11, Tang and Bergerhoff teach the limitations of claim 10.
Tang further discloses wherein the server is further operable to receive from the user device information to unlock the at least one car prior to the server sending the instruction ([Col 16 Ln 64-Col 17 Ln 3] the user may view the unlock code on the user's mobile device (e.g., on the user interface 314 of the application 316 of mobile device 328). The user may enter the unlock code in the smart key storage device (e.g., by pressing numerical pins or buttons) to unlock the storage door to the storage compartment that stores the vehicle key to the desired vehicle);
But does not explicitly disclose sending the instruction to the key fob actuator.
Bergerhoff, on the other hand, teaches sending the instruction to the key fob actuator ([0015] the client device includes a Radio Frequency (RF) signal transmitter for commanding the pre-installed access control system of a vehicle to perform actions such as unlocking doors; [0103-0105] a user may request execution of a command, such as unlocking a vehicle, using the user interface of his handheld device, and the RF signal transmitter of the device sends a telegram to the receiver circuit in the vehicle which in turn executes the commands; [0146] actuation commands sent by the RF signal transmitter include unlocking doors).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system, as taught by Tang, sending the instruction to the key fob actuator, as taught by Bergerhoff, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 16, Tang discloses A method of dealing in cars, the method comprising ([Col 20 Ln 48-65]):
locating cars at different geographic locations ([Col 20 Ln 48-65] a method for facilitating automated vehicle access in a retail environment; [Col 26 Ln 26-38] the system stores locations of vehicles and stores database entries for the parking spot identifiers and corresponding spots, as well as a vehicle profile 358 including a location or parking spot for the vehicle);
maintaining a database having a record for each of the cars, the record including a geographic location of the car ([Col 26 Ln 26-38] the system stores locations of vehicles and stores database entries for the parking spot identifiers and corresponding spots, as well as a vehicle profile 358 including a location or parking spot for the vehicle);
retrieving at least one record from the database by a server ([Col 20 Ln 66-Col 21 Ln 12] The application may obtain the list from the server, which supply a list of inventory within a predetermined proximity of the mobile device… see [Col 15 Ln 56-63] the server may look up or retrieve the vehicle key ID linked or associated with the vehicle from these databases);
providing a user device with the at least one retrieved record by the server ([Col 20 Ln 66-Col 21 Ln 12] At step 505, The user may access an application (e.g., application 316) to obtain a list of available vehicles for lease or purchase. The application may obtain the list from the server, which supply a list of inventory within a predetermined proximity of the mobile device… see [Col 15 Ln 56-63] the server may look up or retrieve the vehicle key ID linked or associated with the vehicle from these databases; [Col 20 Ln 48-65] An application (e.g., application 316) of a mobile device (e.g., mobile device 302) may facilitate a user accessing the vehicle);
receiving by the server from the user device information indicating interest in viewing at least one car corresponding to the at least one retrieved record ([Col 21 Ln 26-38] At step 515, the system may capture image data indicating a vehicle, captured by the user’s mobile device; [Col 21 Ln 50-67] the mobile device may detect a QR code, transmit an identifier based on the QR code to the server, and the server may determine a database entry indicating a particular vehicle assigned to the identifier);
sending by the server an instruction remotely ([Col 12 Ln 36-45] The server system 352 may include, e.g., an API for an application for unlocking vehicles using a mobile device (e.g., vehicle unlock API 368)); and
actuating, by a key fob actuator, an unlock key of a key fob of the at least one car to automatically unlock the at least one car ([Col 10 Ln 61-67] an electronic sensor from the mobile device 302 may capture data from the physical marker 342 on the vehicle, and cause the vehicle to unlock or lock. The vehicle 334 may include a locking system 340 that can electronically and/or mechanically cause the vehicle to unlock or lock based on signals received, e.g., from the mobile device 302; [Col 12 Ln 36-45] The server system 352 may include, e.g., an API for an application for unlocking vehicles using a mobile device (e.g., vehicle unlock API 368));
But does not explicitly disclose sending an instruction to a key fob actuator located within the at least one car.
Bergerhoff, on the other hand, teaches sending an instruction to a key fob actuator located within the at least one car ([0015] the client device includes a Radio Frequency (RF) signal transmitter for commanding the pre-installed access control system of a vehicle to perform actions such as unlocking doors; [0103-0105] a user may request execution of a command, such as unlocking a vehicle, using the user interface of his handheld device, and the RF signal transmitter of the device sends a telegram to the receiver circuit in the vehicle which in turn executes the commands; [0146] actuation commands sent by the RF signal transmitter include unlocking doors).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system, as taught by Tang, sending an instruction to a key fob actuator located within the at least one car, as taught by Bergerhoff, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tang, to include the teachings of Bergerhoff, in order to allow for programming of key devices into almost any vehicle without requiring changes to the vehicle (Bergerhoff, [0025][0090]).
Regarding Claim 17, White and Bergerhoff teach the limitations of claim 16.
Tang further discloses further including the user device providing the server with a location of the user device ([Col 20 Ln 66-Col 21 Ln 12] The application may obtain the list from the server, which supply a list of inventory within a predetermined proximity of the mobile device… see [Col 7 Ln 66-Col 8 Ln 31] sensors 304 within the mobile device include a location sensor 306 (GPS) to determine a location of the mobile device; [Col 22 Ln 7-24] the system may determine a location of the user. A location sensor (e.g., location sensor 306 of a mobile device 302) may determine a location and transmit the location to the server), and
wherein the server retrieving at least one record from the database comprises the server retrieving at least one record from the database based on the location of the user device ([Col 20 Ln 66-Col 21 Ln 12] The application may obtain the list from the server, which supply a list of inventory within a predetermined proximity of the mobile device; [Col 22 Ln 7-24] the location of the user may also be used to confirm that the intended vehicle is to be unlocked (e.g., by compiling a list of nearby vehicles to be cross-referenced against an image of a vehicle).
Regarding Claim 18, White and Bergerhoff teach the limitations of claim 16.
Tang further discloses wherein the server retrieving at least one record from the database based on the location of the device comprises the server retrieving at least one record from the database having a geographic location closest to the location of the user device ([Col 20 Ln 66-Col 21 Ln 12] At step 505, The user may access an application (e.g., application 316) to obtain a list of available vehicles for lease or purchase. The application may obtain the list from the server, which supply a list of inventory within a predetermined proximity of the mobile device… see [Col 15 Ln 56-63] the server may look up or retrieve the vehicle key ID linked or associated with the vehicle from these databases)).
Claims 5 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of Bergerhoff, and further in view of previously cited Avary (US 2018/0060807 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Tang and Bergerhoff teach the limitations of claim 4.
Tang does not explicitly disclose wherein the instruction to automatically unlock the at least one car comprises a short messaging service (SMS) message sent to the key fob actuator.
Bergerhoff, on the other hand, teaches wherein the instruction to automatically unlock the at least one car comprises a message sent to the key fob actuator ([0146] the RF signal transmitter 114 can receive a second access control telegram message from the backend cloud-based system 140. The second access control telegram message can include a second authentication key and can have one or more actuation commands including unlocking doors; [0147] the RF signal transmitter can transmit the actuation commands and the second authentication key to the pre-installed access control system 125 of the vehicle 152).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system, as taught by Tang, wherein the instruction to automatically unlock the at least one car comprises a message sent to the key fob actuator, as taught by Bergerhoff, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Avary, on the other hand, teaches wherein a message is a short messaging service (SMS) message ([0025] Once the vehicle is added to the dealer inventory as a demonstrator vehicle, the dealer is able to then access certain services and activities regarding the vehicle in a remote manner at 140. The remote access may be via the web, by smart phone application, shared messaging service (SMS), or other electronic means).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system, as taught by Tang and Bergerhoff, wherein a message is a short messaging service (SMS) message, as taught by Avary, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tang and Bergerhoff, to include the teachings of Avary, in order to enhance users’ experience with vehicles by providing application-based services, which can be persuasive in making a buying decision for a particular car brand or model (Avary, [0003]).
Regarding Claim 20, Tang, Bergerhoff and Avary teach the limitations of claim 5.
Tang does not explicitly disclose wherein the SMS message includes a unique PIN for authentication purposes and the key fob actuator is operable to receive the SMS message, verify its authenticity, and actuate the unlock button of the key fob stored therein, of the at least one car.
Bergerhoff, on the other hand, teaches wherein the message includes a unique PIN for authentication purposes ([0146] the RF signal transmitter 114 can receive a second access control telegram message from the backend cloud-based system 140. The second access control telegram message can include a second authentication key and can have one or more actuation commands including unlocking doors) and
the key fob actuator is operable to receive the message, verify its authenticity, and actuate the unlock button of the key fob stored therein, of the at least one car ([0146] the RF signal transmitter 114 can receive a second access control telegram message from the backend cloud-based system 140 having one or more actuation commands; [0147] the RF signal transmitter can transmit the actuation commands and the second authentication key to the pre-installed access control system 125 of the vehicle 152… a controller of the access control system 125 can grant access upon successful authentication of the second authentication key and then the actuation commands can be executed and cause a corresponding electro mechanical operation in the vehicle… see [0107] The system emulates the communication between a regular RKE or PASE key fob device and a RF receiver circuit installed in a vehicle in such a way that it is identical to a regular key that is programmed to the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system, as taught by Tang, wherein the message includes a unique PIN for authentication purposes and the key fob actuator is operable to receive the message, verify its authenticity, and actuate the unlock button of the key fob stored therein, as taught by Bergerhoff, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Avary, on the other hand, teaches wherein the message is the SMS message ([0025] Once the vehicle is added to the dealer inventory as a demonstrator vehicle, the dealer is able to then access certain services and activities regarding the vehicle in a remote manner at 140. The remote access may be via the web, by smart phone application, shared messaging service (SMS), or other electronic means).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system, as taught by Tang and Bergerhoff, wherein the message is the SMS message, as taught by Avary, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 5.
Claims 8 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of Bergerhoff, and further in view of previously cited Buchake (US 2021/0192608 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Tang and Bergerhoff teach the limitations of claim 1.
Tang further discloses wherein the instruction unlocks the at least one car ([Col 22 Ln 25-48] At step 530, the system may unlock the vehicle. If the system determines that the user is permitted to unlock the vehicle and/or is in proximity to the vehicle, the system may send a command to unlock the vehicle. The server may utilize a vehicle unlock interface (e.g., API 368) to send an unlock command (e.g., wirelessly or via a wired connection from communications interface 380 to communications interface 336) to a locking system (e.g., a locking system 340 of a vehicle 334));
But does not explicitly disclose wherein the instruction unlocks all cars at the same geographic location as the at least one car.
Buchake, on the other hand, teaches wherein the instruction unlocks all cars at the same geographic location as the at least one car ([0026] Dealer server 202 may send a digital master key to mobile device 224 of user 222, which will pre-provision mobile device 224, thereby allowing user 222 to unlock but not start one more vehicles at dealership 200; [0027] The digital master key on mobile device 224 may be configured to wirelessly transmit unlock and lock instructions to vehicles 208A-B, allowing user 222 to access and browse each of vehicles 208A-B; [0028] the digital master key will automatically unlock each of vehicles 208A-B when user 222 with mobile device 224 approaches and is close proximity to the respective vehicles 208A-B… user 222 may activate an application running on mobile device 224 to unlock vehicles 208A-B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system, as taught by Tang and Bergerhoff, wherein the instruction unlocks all cars at the same geographic location as the at least one car, as taught by Buchake, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tang and Bergerhoff, to include the teachings of Buchake, in order to provide customer access to vehicles in an auto dealership without having to spend time dealing with auto dealership employees (Buchake, [0002]).
Regarding Claim 12, Tang and Bergerhoff teach the limitations of claim 1.
Tang further discloses wherein the server is further operable to send to the user device information after the at least one car is unlocked ([Col 23 Ln 33-56] At step 545, the system may detect that a vehicle has parked… the user interface of the mobile device may comprise a prompt for the user to indicate that the test drive has ended (e.g., a prompt may be displayed after the mobile device ceases high speed motion for a set period of time));
But does not explicitly disclose sending to the user device information relating to an amount of time left for the user to view the at least one car.
Buchake, on the other hand, teaches sending to the user device information relating to an amount of time left for the user to view the at least one car ([0031] the digital master key on mobile device 224 may be operable for a limited time period… the digital master key on mobile device 224 may only be active for those windows of time; [0032] dealership 200 may restrict the availability of vehicles for user 222 to view to a certain time period… dealership 200 may have a particular window of time in which the vehicles for which user 222 is pre-qualified are available to be viewed, in which case a notification may be sent from dealer server 223 to user 222 informing them of the window of time in which digital master key will be active on mobile device 224 of user 222; [0033] when user 222 has completed browsing the vehicles that they are interested in at dealership 200, a void message may be sent by dealer server 223 to mobile device 224 of user 222, thereby removing the access rights to all vehicles for which mobile device 224 has been provided unlocking capability).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system, as taught by Tang and Bergerhoff, sending to the user device information relating to an amount of time left for the user to view the at least one car, as taught by Buchake, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 8.
Regarding Claim 13, Tang, Bergerhoff and Buchake teach the limitations of claim 12.
Tang further discloses wherein the server is further operable to send to the user device information ([Col 20 Ln 66-Col 21 Ln 12] At step 505, The user may access an application (e.g., application 316) to obtain a list of available vehicles for lease or purchase. The application may obtain the list from the server, which supply a list of inventory within a predetermined proximity of the mobile device);
But does not explicitly disclose sending to the user device information indicating time for the user to view the at least one car is up and that the user should lock the at least one car.
Buchake, on the other hand, teaches sending to the user device information indicating time for the user to view the at least one car is up and that the user should lock the at least one car ([0032] dealership 200 may restrict the availability of vehicles for user 222 to view to a certain time period… dealership 200 may have a particular window of time in which the vehicles for which user 222 is pre-qualified are available to be viewed, in which case a notification may be sent from dealer server 223 to user 222 informing them of the window of time in which digital master key will be active on mobile device 224 of user 222; [0033] when user 222 has completed browsing the vehicles that they are interested in at dealership 200, a void message may be sent by dealer server 223 to mobile device 224 of user 222, thereby removing the access rights to all vehicles for which mobile device 224 has been provided unlocking capability).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system, as taught by Tang and Bergerhoff, sending to the user device information indicating time for the user to view the at least one car is up and that the user should lock the at least one car, as taught by Buchake, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 8.
Regarding Claim 14, Tang, Bergerhoff and Buchake teach the limitations of claim 13.
Tang further discloses wherein the server is further operable to send an instruction to a locking device to automatically lock the at least one car ([Col 9 Ln 23-37] a user 222 may be able to lock or unlock the user's requested vehicle 208 via the user's mobile device 224; [Col 10 Ln 39-67] The vehicle 334 may include a locking system 340 that can electronically and/or mechanically cause the vehicle to unlock or lock based on signals received, e.g., from the mobile device 302).
Claims 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of Bergerhoff in view of Buchake, and further in view of newly cited U.S Patent Application No. 2020/0226381 A1 to Wellen et al., hereinafter Wellen.
Regarding Claim 19, Tang and Bergerhoff teach the limitations of claim 2.
Tang further discloses wherein the at least one retrieved record includes a record of a first car and a record of a second car ([Col 20 Ln 66-Col 21 Ln 12] The user may enter a car lot… and the application may obtain the list from the server, which supply a list of inventory within a predetermined proximity of the mobile device);
But does not explicitly disclose wherein the mobile device displays a complete image of the first car and only a partial image of the second car.
Wellen, on the other hand, teaches wherein the mobile device displays a complete image of the first car and only a partial image of the second car ([Fig. 7] depicts the Garage Screen, in which a complete image of the “Lamborghini Ventador” is displayed, and a partial image of the “Ferrari B12 Superfast” is displayed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system, as taught by Tang and Bergerhoff, wherein the mobile device displays a complete image of the first car and only a partial image of the second car, as taught by Wellen, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tang and Bergerhoff, to include the teachings of Wellen, in order to assist users in obtaining information about vehicles (Wellen, [0043]).
Regarding Claim 21, Tang and Bergerhoff teach the limitations of claim 1.
Tang does further disclose wherein the key fob actuator is operable ([Col 12 Ln 36-45] The server system 352 may include one or more APIs described below. The server system 352 may include, e.g., an API for an application for unlocking vehicles using a mobile device (e.g., vehicle unlock API 368));
But does not explicitly disclose informing the server when unlocking is completed.
Wellen, on the other hand, teaches informing the server when unlocking is completed ([0047] Screen 110 includes a command 150 for each vehicle to be unlocked and configured for selecting that particular vehicle. The command 150 may include a status indicator showing whether the vehicle (the vehicle associated with the command) is locked or unlocked. For example, the indicator may be presented in the form of color (e.g., with the command shown in black and white to indicate that the vehicle is locked and with the command shown in color to indicate that the vehicle is unlocked)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system, as taught by Tang and Bergerhoff, informing the server when unlocking is completed, as taught by Wellen, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 19.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of Bergerhoff in view of Buchake, and further in view of Avary.
Regarding Claim 22, Tang, Bergerhoff and Buchake teach the limitations of claim 14.
Tang does not explicitly disclose wherein the instruction to automatically lock the at least one car comprises a short messaging service (SMS) message sent to key fob actuator, and wherein the key fob actuator is operable to receive the SMS message, verify its authenticity, and actuate the lock button of the key fob stored therein, of the at least one car.
Bergerhoff, on the other hand, teaches wherein the instruction to automatically lock the at least one car comprises a message sent to key fob actuator ([0146] the RF signal transmitter 114 can receive a second access control telegram message from the backend cloud-based system 140. The second access control telegram message can include a second authentication key and can have one or more actuation commands including unlocking doors; [0147] the RF signal transmitter can transmit the actuation commands and the second authentication key to the pre-installed access control system 125 of the vehicle 152), and
wherein the key fob actuator is operable to receive the message, verify its authenticity, and actuate the lock button of the key fob stored therein, of the at least one car ([0146] the RF signal transmitter 114 can receive a second access control telegram message from the backend cloud-based system 140 having one or more actuation commands; [0147] the RF signal transmitter can transmit the actuation commands and the second authentication key to the pre-installed access control system 125 of the vehicle 152… a controller of the access control system 125 can grant access upon successful authentication of the second authentication key and then the actuation commands can be executed and cause a corresponding electro mechanical operation in the vehicle… see [0107] The system emulates the communication between a regular RKE or PASE key fob device and a RF receiver circuit installed in a vehicle in such a way that it is identical to a regular key that is programmed to the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system, as taught by Tang, wherein the instruction to automatically lock the at least one car comprises a message sent to key fob actuator and wherein the key fob actuator is operable to receive the message, verify its authenticity, and actuate the lock button of the key fob stored therein, of the at least one car, as taught by Bergerhoff, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Avary, on the other hand, teaches wherein a message is a short message service (SMS) message ([0025] Once the vehicle is added to the dealer inventory as a demonstrator vehicle, the dealer is able to then access certain services and activities regarding the vehicle in a remote manner at 140. The remote access may be via the web, by smart phone application, shared messaging service (SMS), or other electronic means).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system, as taught by Tang, Bergerhoff and Buchake, wherein the message is the SMS message, as taught by Avary, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 5.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Claim 1 clearly improves a technology according to the streamlined eligibility analysis… [by improving] the way potential car buyers are able to independently and conveniently access a car of interest while the security of the cars for sale are maintained” (Remarks Page 7). Examiner respectfully disagrees. If there is doubt as to whether the applicant is effectively seeking coverage for a judicial exception itself, the full eligibility analysis (the Alice/Mayo test) should be conducted. MPEP 2106.06. In the instant case, Applicant citing improvements such as convenience in accessing cars (products) of interest, while maintaining security of the cars, as well as providing a greater degree of independence and freedom to potential buyers, do not amount to an improvement in technology, but rather a business improvement to the abstract idea. For example, neither the specification (see at least [0047]) nor the claims recite technical implementation details such that an improvement to the claimed technology would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive, and further eligibility analysis is required in order to make a determination. The rejection has been maintained.
Applicant further argues that claim 1, as amended, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application because “Claim 1 permits controlled access of a potential buyer to a car of interest in a location that is convenient to the buyer whilst maintaining the security of the car” (Remarks Page 8). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides 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, and conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). Applicant’s specification provides no explanation of an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology. Rather, the claims focus “on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are merely invoked as a tool”. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, (Fed. Cir. 2016). While the specification ([0047]) discloses that the invention makes showroom access convenient for buyers, does away with the need for salespersons to be physically present to lock and unlock cars at a location, and providing a greater degree of independence and freedom granted to a potential buyer, these do not represent technical improvements. The statements made in Applicant’s specification, specifically at ([0047]), do not provide any detail regarding how the claimed invention is providing any improvement to the functioning of the computer or other technology, and therefore the statements are conclusory. Furthermore, saving time and costs for the car dealership amounts to a business improvement rather than a technical improvement. While the claims include additional elements such as a system comprising: a database; at least one key fob actuator; and a server operable to: provide a user device with information; and send an instruction remotely to a key fob actuator located within the at least one car to automatically unlock the at least one car by actuating an unlock key of a key fob of the at least one car, such elements are merely peripherally incorporated in order to implement the abstract idea. The instant claims do not improve technology, but are directed to improving the commercial task of providing users with access to vehicles that they are interested in purchasing. It is further noted that the specification states that “any type of key fob actuator may be used” (see at least [0042]). The claimed process, while arguably resulting in improved user access, is not providing any improvement to another technology or technical field. For example, there is no improvement to any of the claimed additional elements. Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive, and the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant further argues “the additional elements of Claim 1 contribute to the inventive concept of decentralizing a car dealership to provide convenience to potential buyers whilst maintaining the security of the cars for sale without significantly increasing any infrastructure associated with the cars” (Remarks Page 9). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed additional elements do not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because they merely link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (“apply it”). Furthermore, improvements such as allowing [vehicles] to be located in any suitable location for customers to assess, avoiding the need of altering the key fob or the car, and using the key fob actuator with various car types and models amount to conclusory statements of improvement, since the specification does not provide technical implementation detail behind these steps, such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize an improvement to the computer or other technology. Accordingly, the additional elements are insufficient to amount to an inventive concept, and the rejection has been maintained.
With regards to Applicant’s arguments that claim 16 is patent eligible at least for reciting similar subject matter to claim 1 (Remarks Page 9), the 101 rejection of claim 1 has been maintained for the reasons discussed above. For this reason, the 101 rejection of independent claim 16 has been maintained. The 101 rejections of dependent claims 2-3, 5-14 and 17-22 have been similarly maintained. Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) have been fully considered but are rendered moot under new grounds of rejection.
Applicant argues that Claim 1, as amended, overcomes previously cited Tang because “Tang does not teach [the amended limitations of Claim 1]” (Remarks Page 11). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Newly cited Bergerhoff has been relied upon to round out the claim as a whole in combination with Tang, such that claim 1 is now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of the newly cited combination of Tang/Bergerhoff. Accordingly, this argument is rendered moot under new grounds of rejection, and the rejection has been maintained. Nevertheless, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, “a key fob actuator” has been interpreted as a component causing a key fob to perform an operation, in this case unlocking a vehicle. Additionally, a “key fob” has been interpreted as a component configured to send a wireless signal to the electronics of the car to unlock doors (in light of Applicant’s specification, see at least [0042]). The claim describes the key fob actuator as being “located within the at least one car”, but does not denote any structure regarding the actuator. In light of this interpretation, Tang has been further relied upon to teach a car dealership system comprising: at least one key fob actuator, at (Tang [Col 12 Ln 36-45]), disclosing that the server system 352 includes an API for an application for unlocking vehicles using a mobile device. In this case, since the server system provides the API utilized by the users’ mobile devices to unlock vehicles, the server system provides the unlock functionality to the users’ devices via the application. Tang has been further relied upon to teach send an instruction remotely to automatically unlock the at least one car by actuating an unlock key of a key fob of the at least one car, at (Tang, [Col 10, Ln 61-67][Col 12 Ln 36-45]) disclosing the above-discussed server system, and further disclosing that the vehicle may be unlocked based on signals received from the user’s mobile device 302. In this case, the server system sends remote instructions (via API calls) to the user device, allowing the user device to have the functionality of a key fob, unlocking the vehicle.
With regards to Applicant’s argument that independent claims 2-3 and 5-14 overcome the previously cited prior art at least by virtue of their dependencies from claim 1 (Remarks Page 11), this argument is not persuasive, as Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 in the current Office Action.
Applicant further argues that claim 16, as amended, overcomes the previously cited prior art because “Tang does not teach [the amended limitations of Claim 16]“ (Remarks Pages 12-13). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Similar to independent claim 1, Tang has been further relied upon in combination with newly cited Bergerhoff, such that independent claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 in the current Office Action. Accordingly, this argument is rendered moot under new grounds of rejection, and the rejection has been maintained. Nevertheless, Tang has been further relied upon to teach actuating, by a key fob actuator, an unlock key of a key fob of the at least one car to automatically unlock the at least one car, at (Tang, [Col 10 Ln 61-67] [Col 12 Ln 36-45]), describing the server system including an API for an application for unlocking vehicles using a mobile device, as well as the unlocking of a vehicle based on signals received from the user’s mobile device. Bergerhoff has been further relied upon to round out the claim as a whole.
With regards to Applicant’s argument that dependent claims 17-22 overcome the previously cited prior art at least by virtue of their dependencies from claim 16 (Remarks Page 13), this argument is not persuasive, as Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 in the current Office Action.
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are rendered moot under new grounds of rejection.
Applicant argues that claims 1 and 16, as amended, overcome the currently cited prior art because “nothing in Tang suggests the use of a key fob actuator to permit controlled access to a car for sale and access to the car’s key fob for its operation… neither Avary nor Buchake remedy the shortcomings of Tang” (Remarks Pages 14-16). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 currently stands rejected under new grounds of rejection, in view of the combination of Tang and newly cited Bergerhoff, and accordingly this argument is rendered moot under new grounds of rejection. Furthermore, it has been discussed in the above paragraphs that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a key fob actuator includes a component causing a key fob to perform an operation, in this case unlocking a vehicle. In fact, nothing in the claim requires that the key fob actuator must physically press against an unlock button/key of a key fob of the car, but rather that the key fob actuator “unlocks the at least one car by actuating an unlock key of a key fob of the at least one car”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation, actuating an unlock key of a key fob is interpreted as activating the functionality of a key fob, which is performed in Tang through the user device making API calls to the server system in order to be able to unlock cars. Tang (see at least [Col 10, Ln 61-67][Col 12 Ln 36-45]) teaches the actuation of an unlock key of a key fob of the at least one car, as the user device emulates the functions of a key fob in response to accessing the API provided by the server.
With regards to Applicant’s arguments that neither Avary nor Buchake remedy the shortcomings of Tang (Remarks Pages 16 and 17), these arguments are rendered moot in light of the new grounds of rejection, discussed above.
With regards to Applicant’s arguments that dependent claims 2-3, 5-14 and 17-22 overcome the currently cited prior art at least by virtue of their respective dependencies to independent claims 1 and 16 (Remarks Pages 15 and 17), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims 1 and 16 stand rejected in the current Office Action under new grounds of rejection. Accordingly, these arguments are moot, and the rejections of the dependent claims have been maintained.
Applicant further argues regarding “the reference disclosure, Potter” (Remarks Page 17). It appears that these paragraphs regarding Potter were mistakenly included, as a reference by the name of Potter has not been referenced in prosecution of this case. Accordingly, these arguments are not persuasive, and the rejection has been maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY R DONAHUE whose telephone number is (571)272-5850. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-5p.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at (571) 272-6764. 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.
/ZACHARY RYAN DONAHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/MARISSA THEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3689