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 .
Applicant’s response to the last Office Action dated 04/02/2026, as well as arguments and amendment to claims, filed 06/08/2026 have been entered and made of record.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11 and 13-16 are pending. Claims 14-16 are newly presented, and claim 12 is cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and claims 2 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Switalski et al. (US 2022/0048432 A1), Applicant argues that Switalski does not teach or suggest determining elapsed response time, which is merely directed to the amended portion of the claim, and the new analyses presented below render these arguments moot. Applicant’s addition of dependent claims 14-16 has altered the scope of the claims, and therefore, has initiated the following new ground(s) of rejection.
Regarding the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Switalski et al. (US 2022/0048432 A1) in view of Gupta et al. (“DriverAuth: A Risk-Based Multi-Modal Biometric-Based Driver Authentication Scheme for Ride-Sharing Platforms”), Applicant argues that Gupta fails to teach or suggest triggering the sending of additional selfie requests at each of a set of predetermined events in response to a determination that a previously measured response time exceeded a threshold. Applicant also argues that Gupta, in combination with Switalski still does not teach the contents of claim 2 because both references fail to teach or suggest using response-time evaluation to condition event-based request triggering. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As presented in the rejection of claim 1, which claim 2 depends from, paragraph [0279] of Switalski discloses, “If the driver does not provide the automated identity check within the given time this does not result in ban. Rather, just more frequent checks are carried out until a record of identity is established”. Switalski explicitly discloses a situation in which a used/driver exceeds a predetermined threshold in their request response time and executes an additional security precaution. Thus, Switalski teaches using response time evaluation to condition further security precautions. While Switalski does not explicitly teach the security precaution of event-based triggering, Gupta does explicitly teach this in the Introduction section; “The proposal of DriverAuth- a multi-modal system that pro-actively verifies the drivers’ identity every time drivers accept a new ride-booking. The proposed mechanism collects three biometric modalities, e.g., swipe gestures, text-independent voice and face, while they interact with the dedicated driver-application, to verify the drivers’ identity.” Gupta explicitly discloses the additional security caution of triggering an identity authorization request at predetermined events (accepting a new ride). In combination, Switalski discloses adding an additional safety precaution in a case where a user/driver exceeds a predetermined time threshold and Gupta discloses the additional security precaution of triggering an identity authorization request at predetermined events. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the situation of Switalski with the additional security precaution of Gupta to obtain claim 2. Therefore, Examiner does not find the argument persuasive and retains the prior rejection of claim 2.
Regarding the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Switalski et al. (US 2022/0048432 A1) in view of Westfield et al. (US 6,907,254 B1), Applicant argues that Westfield fails to teach or suggest the features of claim 8 because Westfield fails to teach or suggest sending additional requests with a minimum time buffer period between successive requests. Applicant also argues that the combination of Switalski and Westfield fail to teach or suggest the features of claim 8. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The disclosure of Westfield, in column 5, lines 15-19, states, “The system periodically, e.g. every 5-15 minutes, requests the phone to re-identify itself …”. Examiner interprets this disclosure to request an authentication action every 5-15 minutes. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, for example, 5 minutes is the minimum buffer period between successive requests. Thus, any time between 5-15 minutes would be a minimum buffer between sending additional requests with a minimum time buffer period between successive requests. Therefore, Examiner does not find the argument persuasive and retains the prior rejection of claim 8. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification clearly discloses flagging a diver/account as suspicious if the determined time exceeds the predetermined threshold, a number of passengers report a different vehicle or driver, and the frequency with which the driver has switched phones for the last few days exceeds a threshold. The specification also clearly discloses analyzing selfie sequences and gaps between selfie event and clustering the drivers/accounts based on selfie-response patterns. However, the specification does not clearly and explicitly appear to disclose the specific limitations of “determining a difference between consecutive elapsed response times” and “identifying the user as suspicious when the difference exceeds a predetermined threshold.” The specification is silent as to a delta or difference in elapsed response times and comparing that difference to a threshold. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as adding new matter not described in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 10-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Switalski et al. (US 2022/0048432 A1) with an EFD of 12/17/2019.
Regarding claim 1, Switalski teaches, “A method for authenticating a driver of a vehicle, comprising: sending a request to a mobile phone to provide a selfie of a user of the mobile phone by means of the mobile phone, wherein the mobile phone is registered to receive orders for transport tasks” (Switalski, Pg. 22, Para. [0272] discloses; “1) the ride share server sends a request to a driver's smartphone (the smartphone registered to the driver identity to carry out one or more of the following: [0273] a) capture a photograph of face) “determining a time the user takes to provide a selfie in response to the request” (Switalski, Pg. 22, Para. [0278] discloses; “The driver has a predetermined time period to carry out this identity authentication, for example, ten minutes”) “sending additional requests to the mobile phone to provide selfies by means of the mobile phone if the determined time exceeds a predetermined threshold with a higher frequency than if the determined time does not exceed the predetermined threshold” (Switalski, Pg. 22, Para. [0279] discloses; “If the driver does not provide the automated identity check within the given time this does not result in ban. Rather, just more frequent checks are carried out until a record of identity is established”) “and performing authentication of the user as legitimate driver using selfies provided in response to the additional requests” (Switalski, Pg. 22, Para. [0279] discloses; “This aspect is also very useful for spot checks on the identity of a driver by the ride share server to ensure quality of service and authentication of identities of actual drivers working with the ride share company”).
Regarding claim 6, Switalski teaches, “The method of claim 1, wherein the mobile phone is registered under a user account to receive orders for transport tasks and the method comprises flagging the user account as suspicious if the determined time exceeds the predetermined threshold and sending additional requests to the mobile phone if the account is flagged as suspicious than if the account is not flagged as suspicious” (Switalski, Pg. 22, Paras. [0279] – [0280] discloses; “If the driver does not provide the automated identity check within the given time this does not result in ban. Rather, just more frequent checks are carried out until a record of identity is established then the frequency of checking diminishes again. This aspect is also very useful for spot checks on the identity of a driver by the ride share server to ensure quality of service and authentication of identities of actual drivers working with the ride share company. 4) One sanction for persistent failure or these automated identity checks could be in the restrictions that the ride share server places on that driver identity for future ride sharing activity” Examiner interprets that adding sanctions to an account is the same as flagging the account as suspicious.}
Regarding claim 10, Switalski teaches, “The method of claim 1, comprising sending an additional request after a predetermined request interval if the determined time does not exceed the predetermined threshold” (Switalski Pg. 22, Paras. [0271]-[0273] discloses; “More specifically, when a request is received by the ride share server from the passenger for the identity check, the following actions are carried out by the server. 1) the ride share server sends a request to a driver's smartphone (the smartphone registered to the driver identity to carry out one or more of the following: a) capture a photograph of face; Examiner interprets an identity request from a passenger to have the ability to occur when the time does not exceed a threshold.)
Regarding claim 11, Switalski teaches,” An authentication server configured to perform the method of claim 1” (Switalski, Pg. 22, Para. [0279] discloses; “This aspect is also very useful for spot checks on the identity of a driver by the ride share server to ensure quality of service and authentication of identities of actual drivers working with the ride share company”).
Regarding newly added claim 14, Switalski teaches, “The method of claim 1, wherein the higher frequency comprises reducing a time interval between successive additional requests in proportion to the elapsed response time exceeding the predetermined threshold.” (Switalski, Pg. 22, Para. [0279] discloses; “If the driver does not provide the automated identity check within the given time this does not result in ban. Rather, just more frequent checks are carried out until a record of identity is established” It is implied that “more frequent checks” means reducing the time interval between requests.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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 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.
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.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Switalski in view of Gupta et al. (“DriverAuth: A Risk-Based Multi-Modal Biometric-Based Driver Authentication Scheme for Ride-Sharing Platforms”, June 2019, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167404818310113)
Regarding claim 2, Switalski teaches, “The method of claim 1, comprising, if the determined time exceeds the predetermined threshold” (Switalski, Pg. 22, Para. [0278] discloses; “The driver has a predetermined time period to carry out this identity authentication, for example, ten minutes”). Switalski does not explicitly teach, “triggering the sending of an additional request at each of a set of predetermined events”. Since Switalski does not explicitly disclose these limitations, Examiner relies on the teachings of Gupta, in an analogous field of endeavor. Specifically, Gupta discloses “triggering the sending of an additional request at each of a set of predetermined events” (Gupta, Introduction discloses; “The proposal of DriverAuth- a multi-modal system that pro-actively verifies the drivers’ identity every time drivers accept a new ride-booking. The proposed mechanism collects three biometric modalities, e.g., swipe gestures, text-independent voice and face, while they interact with the dedicated driver-application, to verify the drivers’ identity” The accepting of a new ride-booking is interpreted to be a predetermined event. These limitations are deemed obvious by combining this limitation and the time threshold of Switalski.)
Switalski and Gupta are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of authenticating ride-share drivers using biometric data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Switalski to incorporate the teachings of Gupta in order to request biometric authentication when a driver would like to be active and take ride requests. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the previously described method of Switalski with the teachings of Gupta to ensure the drivers are authenticated before they have the ability to accept ride requests. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to combine Switalski and Gupta to obtain the above specified limitations.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Switalski and Gupta teaches, “The method of claim 2, comprising avoiding triggering sending an additional request by the predetermined events if the determined time does not exceed the predetermined threshold” (Switalski, Pg. 22, Para. [0279] discloses; “If the driver does not provide the automated identity check within the given time this does not result in ban. Rather, just more frequent checks are carried out until a record of identity is established then the frequency of checking diminishes again” Examiner interprets “the frequency of checking diminishes” to be the same as avoiding the sending of requests”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Switalski and Gupta teaches, “The method of claim 3, wherein the predetermined events comprises the user toggling an availability state for taking transport tasks from not available to available and/or the user having completed a transport task” (Gupta, Introduction discloses; “The proposal of DriverAuth- a multi-modal system that pro-actively verifies the drivers’ identity every time drivers accept a new ride-booking. The proposed mechanism collects three biometric modalities, e.g., swipe gestures, text-independent voice and face, while they interact with the dedicated driver-application, to verify the drivers’ identity” Examiner interprets “every time a driver accepts a new ride-booking” to be the same as being available for a ride and completing a transport task). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Switalski and Gupta references in the rejection of claim 2, apply to claim 4 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the method recited in claim 4 is met by Switalski and Gupta.
Claims 5, 12-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Switalski in view of Truong et al. (US 2017/0039890 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Switalski does not explicitly teach, “The method of claim 1, wherein the predetermined threshold is in the range of 5 minutes to 30 minutes”. Since Switalski does not explicitly disclose these limitations, Examiner relies on the teachings of Truong, in an analogous field of endeavor. Specifically, Truong discloses “The method of claim 1, wherein the predetermined threshold is in the range of 5 minutes to 30 minutes” (Truong, Pg. 6, Para. [0044] discloses; “For example, the communication 141 may specify that the driver has to perform the verification action 143 in a designated location (e.g., in a parking lot, at a particular address, etc.) and within a set parameter of time (e.g., within ten minutes, immediately, etc.))”.
Switalski and Truong are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of authenticating ride-share drivers using biometric data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Switalski to incorporate the teachings of Truong in order to request biometric authentication even when a time threshold has not been exceeded. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the previously described method of Switalski with the teachings of Truong to authenticate drivers even when they have not exceeded a time threshold as another layer of protection and incorporating an unpredictability element to authentication. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to combine Switalski and Truong to obtain the above specified limitations.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Switalski and Truong teaches, “A computer program element comprising program instructions, which, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the method of claim 1” (Truong, Pg. 3, Para. [0027] discloses; “Furthermore, one or more embodiments described herein may be implemented through the use of instructions that are executable by one or more processors. These instructions may be carried on a computer-readable medium. Machines shown or described with figures below provide examples of processing resources and computer-readable mediums on which instructions for implementing embodiments of the invention can be carried and/or executed”). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Switalski and Truong references in the rejection of claim 5, apply to claim 12 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the computer program element in claim 12 is met by Switalski and Truong.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Switalski and Truong teaches, “A computer-readable medium comprising program instructions, which, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the method of claim 1” (Truong, Pg. 3, Para. [0027] discloses; “Furthermore, one or more embodiments described herein may be implemented through the use of instructions that are executable by one or more processors. These instructions may be carried on a computer-readable medium. Machines shown or described with figures below provide examples of processing resources and computer-readable mediums on which instructions for implementing embodiments of the invention can be carried and/or executed”). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Switalski and Truong references in the rejection of claim 5, apply to claim 13 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the computer-readable medium in claim 13 is met by Switalski and Truong.
Regarding newly added claim 15, the combination of Switalski and Truong teaches, “The method of claim 1, further comprising analyzing a behavioral pattern of the user based on the elapsed response time for providing the selfie” (Truong, Para. [0028] discloses; “FIG. 1A illustrates a driver profiling system for obtaining and utilizing profile information relating to driver quality and behavior in connection with a transport service, according to some embodiments.” Switalski teaches implementing an additional security measure based on an elapsed response time in the rejection of claim 1. Thus, it would be obvious to combine the additional security measure of Truong (analyzing behavior), with the elapsed response time of Switalski.) “and classifying the user as suspicious when the elapsed response time exceeds the predetermined threshold.” (Switalski, Pg. 22, Paras. [0279] – [0280] discloses; “If the driver does not provide the automated identity check within the given time this does not result in ban. Rather, just more frequent checks are carried out until a record of identity is established then the frequency of checking diminishes again. This aspect is also very useful for spot checks on the identity of a driver by the ride share server to ensure quality of service and authentication of identities of actual drivers working with the ride share company. 4) One sanction for persistent failure or these automated identity checks could be in the restrictions that the ride share server places on that driver identity for future ride sharing activity” Examiner interprets that adding sanctions to an account is the same as flagging the account as suspicious.) The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Switalski and Truong references in the rejection of claim 5, apply to claim 15 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the computer program element in claim 15 is met by Switalski and Truong.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Switalski in view of Trim et al. (US 2020/0169554 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Switalski does not explicitly teach “The method of claim 6, comprising flagging the account as suspicious if a number of passengers which report a different vehicle or a different driver for their rides than expected according to the user’s profile within a first predetermined period exceeds a first further predetermined threshold and/or comprising flagging the account as suspicious if the frequency with which different mobile phones have been used to register under the user account within a second predetermined period exceeds a second further predetermined threshold”. Since Switalski does not explicitly disclose these limitations, Examiner relies on the teachings of Trim, in an analogous field of endeavor. Specifically, Trim discloses, “The method of claim 6, comprising flagging the account as suspicious if a number of passengers which report a different vehicle or a different driver for their rides than expected according to the user’s profile within a first predetermined period exceeds a first further predetermined threshold and/or comprising flagging the account as suspicious if the frequency with which different mobile phones have been used to register under the user account within a second predetermined period exceeds a second further predetermined threshold” (Trim, Pg. 5, Para. [0057] discloses; “At 106 the configured processor determines a content subject matter of the suspicious input. Illustrative but not exhaustive examples of suspicious inputs include frequent transactions from the same user that are made in frequent, short periods of time, and associated with large deposits and withdrawals made in cash or by check in the case of financial accounts; numerous transactions that are initiated from different locations on the same day for the same account, particular for banking transactions below an established reporting threshold; inconsistent device usage, such as a log-in that is not from the usual or historic smart phone” Examiner interprets the disclosure from Trim to be the same as “flagging the account as suspicious if the frequency with which different mobile phones have been used to register under the user account”.)
Switalski and Trim are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of authenticating and monitoring accounts for suspicious activity. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Switalski to incorporate the teachings of Trim in order to keep track of suspicious accounts based on the registrations and failures to authenticate. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the previously described method of Switalski with the teachings of Trim to ensure the security of the product for users by flagging suspicious accounts and requiring secure authentications. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to combine Switalski and Trim to obtain the above specified limitations.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Switalski in view of Westfield et al. (US 6,907,254 B1).
Regarding claim 8, Switalski does not explicitly teach “The method of claim 1, comprising sending the additional requests to the mobile phone with a minimum time buffer period between the sending of the additional requests”. Since Switalski does not explicitly disclose these limitations, Examiner relies on the teachings of Westfield, in an analogous field of endeavor. Specifically, Westfield discloses, “The method of claim 1, comprising sending the additional requests to the mobile phone with a minimum time buffer period between the sending of the additional requests” (Westfield, Column 5, Lines 15 – 19 discloses; “The system periodically, e.g. every 5-15 minutes, requests the phone to re-identify itself, and if the phone is turned on it responds by transmitting identification information, which can include its electronic serial number (ESN)…” Examiner interprets that it would’ve been obvious to combine the buffer period in requests from Westfield with the requests of Switalski in claim 1).
Switalski and Westfield are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of requesting phones for information at specified times. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Switalski to incorporate the teachings of Westfield in order to request information from a user/phone at specific time intervals. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the previously described method of Switalski with the teachings of Westfield to allow the user to complete their authentication without needing a human to send requests, and having a program send the requests at time intervals instead. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to combine Switalski and Westfield to obtain the above specified limitations.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Switalski and Westfield teaches,“ The method of claim 8, wherein the time buffer period is in the range of 5 minutes to 30 minutes” (Westfield, Column 5, Lines 15 – 19 discloses; “The system periodically, e.g. every 5-15 minutes, requests the phone to re-identify itself, and if the phone is turned on it responds by transmitting identification information, which can include its electronic serial number (ESN)…” Examiner interprets that it would’ve been obvious to combine the buffer in requests from Westfield with the requests of Switalski in claim 1). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Switalski and Westfield references in the rejection of claim 8, apply to claim 9 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the method of claim 9 is met by Switalski and Westfield.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN M. OAKES whose telephone number is (571)272-9379. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5pm.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached at (571) 272-3382. 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.
/JUSTIN M OAKES/Examiner, Art Unit 2662 /AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights