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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 were previously pending. Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 15, and 18 were amended in the reply filed August 10, 2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the Summary of Telephone Interview (Remarks, 11), Examiner notes an error in that John L. Lyon was not present.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection made under § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea at Step 2A – Prong One. "Applicant respectfully submits that Applicant is not merely making a 'general allegation' in an attempt to 'rebut' a finding of the Office Action. See id. Instead, Applicant submits that in not explicitly identifying language in Applicant's claims that explicitly names any 'method[] of organizing human activities,' the Office Action fails to meet the standard of showing that Applicant's claims recite a 'judicial exception' as opposed to merely 'involving' one. See id.; MPEP § 2106.04 (a)(1). Applicant submits again that claim 1, for example, is not directed toward the abstract idea of 'organizing human activities.' See (Office Action, p. 5). Instead, the claim is directed toward a technical design involving 'generating... a trip record based at least in part on the trip entry,' 'determining a departure time associated with the trip record,' 'determining an arrival time associated with the trip record,' 'generating a prompt for trip feedback based at least in part on the trip record,' 'sending a trip-preparedness checklist to a user device prior to the departure time,' 'automatically sending the prompt for trip feedback after the arrival time has passed,' and 'responding to the trip feedback.' These are specific, technical steps." Remarks, 13.
The limitations that comprise the abstract idea were explicitly identified in the Non-Final Office Action mailed May 8, 2026 (¶¶ 13-15), which includes all of those quoted above other than the generic user device. Absent an amendment that overcomes a rejection, rebutting the findings would be required in order for the rejection to be removed. In order to rebut the findings made in the rejection, Applicant would need to explain why, e.g., determining a departure time associated with the trip record is a 'technical step" rather than a step that fits into the abstract category of certain methods of organizing human activities. Instead, as in the previous reply, Applicant merely states that this is part of a "technical design" without any reasons to support it. Conclusory statements such as these are general allegations that are insufficient to overcome the prima facie case of ineligibility.
Applicant also argues that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Although Applicant argues that the limitations provide a "technical solution" (Remarks, 15), again no explanation is provided. Determining departure and arrival time and sending a checklist are abstract. "It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement." MPEP 2106.05(a). The only additional element present in these limitations is a generic user device. "Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application…" MPEP 2106.04(d) II. (emphasis added). When viewed in combination, the recited user device is nothing more than generally linking the abstract idea to a generic technological environment.
Applicant also argues that the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea. "Applicant respectfully submits that claims 1-20 contain language that is not 'well-understood' or 'routine' for the relevant 'industry.' For example, claim 1 recites 'determine a departure time,' 'determine an arrival time,' 'send a trip-preparedness checklist to a user device prior to the departure time,' 'automatically send the prompt for trip feedback after the arrival time has passed,' and 'send[] the trip feedback to a remedy service.' Applicant submits that in the surrounding industry, the combination of this language is not 'conventional activity' and instead represents an 'inventive concept' and 'significantly more' than the alleged judicial exception." Remarks, 17. The basis of the rejection is not that these limitations are conventional. Other than the generic user device, which is unquestionably conventional, all of these limitations are abstract. "[T]he relevant inquiry is not whether the claimed invention as a whole is unconventional or non-routine." BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
With respect to the dependent claims (see Remarks, 18-19) all of the claims were evaluated individually. For the sake of conciseness and readability, where the issues are the same as the independent claims they are not repeated (as stated in the highlighted portions of the Office Action). Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections made under § 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The arguments merely restate the cited art, the language of the claims, and conclude that "these are distinct from the language of Applicant's claims 1." Remarks, 21. This only amounts to a general allegation of patentability. It is not clear why the art would be insufficient to teach the limitations because it is "in the context of an 'expense report.'" Remarks, 21. The passages cited disclose departure/arrival times and, for reasons already of record, the broad term "trip feedback" reads on any data received from the traveler via a prompt after the trip has occurred (see Interview Summary mailed August 13, 2026). Accordingly, the rejections are maintained.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (abstract idea without significantly more). Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Claims 1-20, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 1:
The claims recite an abstract idea reflected in the representative functions of the independent claims—including:
With respect to claims 1 & 8:
receive a trip entry associated with a user, the trip entry comprising trip data;
generate a trip record based at least in part on the trip entry, the trip record comprising the trip data;
send the trip record to an approval service;
in response to receiving an approval from the approval service, forward the trip record to a booking service;
modify the trip record based at least in part on booking data provided by the booking service;
determine a departure time associated with the trip record;
determine an arrival time associated with the trip record;
customize a prompt for trip feedback based at least in part on the trip record;
send a trip preparedness checklist to a user prior to the departure time;
send the prompt for trip feedback after the arrival time has passed; and
respond to the trip feedback corresponding to the prompt by at least:
sending the trip feedback to a remedy service; and
receiving a resolution confirmation from the remedy service.
With respect to claim 15:
generate a trip record comprising trip data;
identify additional data based at least in part on a compliance list;
send a first prompt for the additional data; receive the additional data;
modify the trip record based at least in part on the additional data; and
send the trip record to an approval service;
determine an arrival time associated with the trip record;
determine a departure time associated with the trip record;
customize a second prompt for trip feedback based at least in part on the trip record;
send a trip preparedness checklist to a user prior to the departure time;
send the second prompt for trip feedback after the arrival time has passed; and
respond to the trip feedback corresponding to the second prompt by at least:
sending the trip feedback to a remedy service; and
receiving a resolution confirmation from the remedy service.
These limitations taken together qualify as a certain method of organizing human activities because they recite collecting, analyzing, and outputting information for coordinating the travel behaviors of persons and related transactional/commercial relationships with travel service providers (i.e., in the terminology of the 2019 Revised Guidance, fundamental economic practices; commercial interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions).
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no meaningful limitations that transform the exception into a patent eligible application. The elements merely serve to provide a general link to a technological environment (e.g., computers and the Internet) in which to carry out the judicial exception (computing device comprising a processor and a memory; and machine-readable instructions stored in the memory; natural language processing, user device—all recited at a high level of generality). Although they have and execute instructions to perform the abstract idea itself (e.g., modules, program code, etc. to automate the abstract idea; broadly perform steps "automatically"), this also does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it merely amounts to instructions to "apply it."
Aside from such instructions to implement the abstract idea, they are solely used for generic computer operations (e.g., receiving, storing, retrieving, transmitting data), employing the computer as a tool. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.") (citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245,1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) (emphasis added).
The claims only manipulate abstract data elements into another form. They do not set forth improvements to another technological field or the functioning of the computer itself and instead use computer elements as tools to improve the functioning of the abstract idea identified above. Looking at the additional limitations and abstract idea as an ordered combination and as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Rather than any meaningful limits, their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation of the abstract idea identified in Prong One. None of the additional elements recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers." Alice Corp., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
At the levels of abstraction described above, the claims do not readily lend themselves to a finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. Therefore, the analysis proceeds to step 2B. See BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The Enfish claims, understood in light of their specific limitations, were unambiguously directed to an improvement in computer capabilities. Here, in contrast, the claims and their specific limitations do not readily lend themselves to a step-one finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. We therefore defer our consideration of the specific claim limitations’ narrowing effect for step two.") (citations omitted).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as presented in Step 2A Prong 2 (i.e., they amount to nothing more than a general link to a particular technological environment and instructions to apply it there, including "automatically"). Moreover, the additional elements recited are known and conventional computing elements (computing device comprising a processor and a memory; and machine-readable instructions stored in the memory; natural language processing; user device—see Specification ¶¶ 0027, 64, 72-73 describing these at a high level of generality and in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements).
The Federal Circuit has recognized that "an invocation of already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance, for use in carrying out improved mathematical calculations, amounts to a recitation of what is 'well-understood, routine, [and] conventional.'" SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alteration in original) (citing Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)). Apart from the instructions to implement the abstract idea, they only serve to perform well-understood functions (e.g., receiving, storing, retrieving, transmitting data—see Specification above as well as Alice Corp.; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) covering the well-known nature of these basic computer functions).
"The use and arrangement of conventional and generic computer components recited in the claims—such as a database, user terminal, and server— do not transform the claim, as a whole, into 'significantly more' than a claim to the abstract idea itself. We have repeatedly held that such invocations of computers and networks that are not even arguably inventive are insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the application of an abstract idea." Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already presented (i.e., they merely narrow the same abstract idea identified above without adding any new additional elements beyond it). Additionally, for the same reasons as above, the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they use the same general link to a technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims (i.e., generic computing device with processor and memory). Claims 6-7, 13-14, and 19-20 recite a generic user device, and claims 7, 14, and 20 recite natural language processing. However, when viewed in combination these merely further set forth a general link to particular technological environment in which to execute the abstract idea.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea. Although they add the elements identified in 2A above (user device, natural language processing) these do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, the Specification also indicates this is the routine use of known components for the same reasons presented with respect to the elements in the independent claims above (see ¶¶ 0027, 64 describing these at a high level of generality and without any appreciable technical specifics). Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 101.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altman, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2003/0120526 (Reference A of the PTO-892 part of paper no. 20250803) in view of Jungmeisteris, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0374956 (Reference B of the PTO-892 part of paper no. 20250803).
As per claim 1, Altman teaches a system, comprising:
a computing device comprising a processor and a memory; and machine-readable instructions stored in the memory (¶ 0049) that, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to at least:
receive a trip entry associated with a user, the trip entry comprising trip data (¶ 0065);
generate a trip record based at least in part on the trip entry, the trip record comprising the trip data (¶¶ 0060, 65);
send the trip record to an approval service (¶¶ 0060, 100);
in response to receiving an approval from the approval service, forward the trip record to a booking service (¶¶ 0060, 87);
modify the trip record based at least in part on booking data provided by the booking service (¶¶ 0034-35, 115);
determine a departure time associated with the trip record (¶ 0065);
determine an arrival time associated with the trip record (¶ 0065);
customize a prompt for trip feedback based at least in part on the trip record (¶¶ 0065, 123-124);
send a trip preparedness checklist to a user prior to the departure time (¶¶ 0034, 136);
automatically send the prompt for trip feedback after the arrival time has passed (¶¶ 0065, 123-124).
Examiner notes that any differences between the trip itinerary and directions in Altman and the claimed "trip-preparedness checklist" can only be found in the non-functional descriptive material of the data contained in the checklist. This merely descriptive data cannot lend patentability to an invention that would have otherwise been anticipated by the prior art. In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339; 70 USPQ2d 1862, 1864 (Fed. Cir. 2004); cf. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385; 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (when descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability). The checklist does not exploit or interrelate with any underlying structural or manipulative element and instead reads on a broad set of nonspecific text passively sent to the user (see published Specification ¶ 0042—"A trip-preparedness checklist can comprise a variety of pre-travel tasks, questions, or confirmations for a user to complete before embarking on their trip."). Therefore, is not "functionally related to the substrate." See id.
Altman does not explicitly teach the following, which is taught by Jungmeisteris:
respond to the trip feedback corresponding to the prompt (¶ 0038) by at least:
sending the trip feedback to a remedy service (¶¶ 0038, 72, 86); and
receiving a resolution confirmation from the remedy service (¶¶ 0057—"resolving the outstanding issues," ¶ 0062—"In FIG. 4A, the user's problem was resolved").
It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate these elements for the same reason they are useful in Jungmeisteris—namely, to quickly resolve issues with the trip via text analysis. Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art of travel services. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
As per claim 2, Altman in view of Jungmeisteris teaches claim 1 as above. Altman further teaches the machine-readable instructions further cause the computing device to at least: compare trip data associated with the trip record to a compliance list (¶¶ 0084-85); and send an additional prompt for additional trip data based at least in part on a comparison of the trip data to the compliance list (¶ 0090).
As per claim 3, Altman in view of Jungmeisteris teaches claim 2 as above. Altman further teaches the machine-readable instructions further cause the computing device to at least: receive the additional trip data (¶ 0065); and modify the trip record to include the additional trip data (¶¶ 0065, 115, 119).
As per claim 4, Altman in view of Jungmeisteris teaches claim 1 as above. Altman further teaches the machine-readable instructions further cause the computing device to at least modify a status associated with the trip record in response to receiving the approval from the approval service (¶¶ 0060, 100).
As per claim 5, Altman in view of Jungmeisteris teaches claim 1 as above. Altman further teaches the trip-preparedness checklist at least pre-travel inquiries (¶¶ 0061, 86, 90). Examiner notes that any differences between the inquiries in Altman and the claimed "pre-travel inquiries" can only be found in the non-functional descriptive material of the data contained in the checklist. This merely descriptive data cannot lend patentability to an invention that would have otherwise been anticipated by the prior art. In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339; 70 USPQ2d 1862, 1864 (Fed. Cir. 2004); cf. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385; 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (when descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability). The checklist and pre-travel inquiries do not exploit or interrelate with any underlying structural or manipulative element and are described instead as textual data passively sent to the user (see published Specification ¶ 0042). Therefore, is not "functionally related to the substrate." See id.
As per claim 6, Altman in view of Jungmeisteris teaches claim 1 as above. Jungmeisteris further teaches the prompt is generated by at least retrieving and customizing an existing prompt based at least in part of the trip record (¶¶ 0038, 72, 80), which would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as the elements in claim 1 above.
As per claim 7, Altman in view of Jungmeisteris teaches claim 6 as above. Altman further teaches the machine-readable instructions further cause the computing device to at least: receive the trip feedback from a user device (¶¶ 0065, 123-124). Jungmeisteris further teaches to extract feedback data from the trip feedback based at least in part on natural language processing techniques (¶¶ 0084-86, 102), which would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as the elements in claim 1 above.
As per claims 8-14, Altman in view of Jungmeisteris teaches a method comprising steps implementing the functionality of analogous claims 1-7 (see citations and obviousness rationale above).
As per claim 15, Altman teaches a system, comprising:
a computing device comprising a processor and a memory; and machine-readable instructions stored in the memory (¶ 0049) that, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to at least:
generate a trip record comprising trip data (¶¶ 0060, 65);
identify additional data based at least in part on a compliance list (¶¶ 0084-85);
send a prompt for the additional data (¶¶ 0065, 90);
receive the additional data (¶¶ 0065, 90);
modify the trip record based at least in part on the additional data (¶¶ 0065, 86, 90);
send the trip record to an approval service (¶¶ 0060, 86, 100);
determine an arrival time associated with the trip record (¶ 0065);
determine a departure time associated with the trip record (¶ 0065);
customize a second prompt for trip feedback based at least in part on the trip record (¶¶ 0065, 123-124);
send a trip preparedness checklist to a user prior to the departure time (¶¶ 0034, 136);
automatically send the second prompt for trip feedback after the arrival time has passed (¶¶ 0065, 123-124).
Examiner notes that any differences between the trip itinerary and directions in Altman and the claimed "trip-preparedness checklist" can only be found in the non-functional descriptive material of the data contained in the checklist. This merely descriptive data cannot lend patentability to an invention that would have otherwise been anticipated by the prior art. In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339; 70 USPQ2d 1862, 1864 (Fed. Cir. 2004); cf. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385; 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (when descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability). The checklist does not exploit or interrelate with any underlying structural or manipulative element and instead reads on a broad set of nonspecific text passively sent to the user (see published Specification ¶ 0042—"A trip-preparedness checklist can comprise a variety of pre-travel tasks, questions, or confirmations for a user to complete before embarking on their trip."). Therefore, is not "functionally related to the substrate." See id.
Altman does not explicitly teach the following, which is taught by Jungmeisteris:
respond to the trip feedback corresponding to the second prompt (¶¶ 0038, 86) by at least:
sending the trip feedback to a remedy service (¶¶ 0038, 72, 86);
receiving a resolution confirmation from the remedy service (¶¶ 0057—"resolving the outstanding issues," ¶ 0062—"In FIG. 4A, the user's problem was resolved").
It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate these elements for the same reasons as in claim 1 above.
As per claim 16, Altman in view of Jungmeisteris teaches claim 15 as above. Altman further teaches the machine-readable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the computing device to at least: receive approval for the trip record from the approval service (¶¶ 0060, 87); and modify a status of the trip record based at least in part on the approval (¶¶ 0034-35, 60, 115).
As per claim 17, Altman in view of Jungmeisteris teaches claim 16 as above. Altman further teaches the machine-readable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the computing device to at least: in response to receipt of the approval, forward the trip record to a booking service (¶¶ 0060, 87); receive booking data from the booking service (¶¶ 0060, 65, 100); and modify the trip record based at least in part on the booking data (¶¶ 0034-35, 65, 115).
As per claims 18-20, Altman in view of Jungmeisteris teaches claim 15 as above. Altman in view of Jungmeisteris further teaches the limitations of analogous claims 5-7 (see citations and obviousness rationale above).
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 DANIEL VETTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1366. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/DANIEL VETTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights