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 .
Detailed Action
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s filing of 02/28/2026.
Claims 1 – 18 are pending; claims 2 – 18 being new.
The effective filing date of the present application is 07/31/2019.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's reply and remarks of 02/28/2026 have been entered and considered.
The examiner will address applicant's remarks at the end of this office action.
Priority
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 62/915,557, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
New claims 2, 3, 11, and 12, contain elements such as “a plurality of lights configured to illuminate the evaluation area”; and “one or more mirrors arranged within the evaluation are to capture reflections…”. There is no support within the disclosure of 62/915,557 that would define these recited elements. As a result, the effective date for these certain claims will be 10/15/2020; the effective date of the application the instant is a continuation of.
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 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At Step 1 of eligibility analysis, the claims are directed toward a system and a method; thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories and are considered eligible subject matter.
At Step 2A, Prong One, of analysis, the claims set forth a method for evaluating previously-owned electronic devices. Evaluations, judgments, and opinions, are examples of a mental process, which is considered an abstract idea.
Claim 10, which is illustrative of claim 1, contains those elements that define this abstract idea, (and are highlighted below):
A method for evaluating previously-owned electronic devices, the method comprising:
receiving a previously-owned electronic device (POD) in an evaluation area of an evaluation apparatus, the evaluation apparatus comprising one or more cameras arranged to capture images of the POD within the evaluation area;
uniquely identifying, by at least one processor, the POD;
capturing, using the one or more cameras, a first set of one or more images of the POD during a first evaluation point;
performing, by the at least one processor, a first evaluation of the POD using the first set of one or more images;
storing in a database a first evaluation dataset from the first evaluation in association with a first timestamp;
capturing, using the one or more cameras, a second set of one or more images of the POD during a second evaluation point that is temporally distinct from the first evaluation point;
performing, by the at least one processor, a second evaluation of the POD using the second set of one or more images;
storing in the database a second evaluation dataset from the second evaluation in association with a second timestamp; and
comparing, by the at least one processor, the first evaluation dataset and the second evaluation dataset to determine a change in a condition of the POD between the first evaluation point and the second evaluation point.
At Step 2A, Prong Two, of analysis, the Examiner has determined that the identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, in MPEP 2106.05(f) it is noted that "[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore, according to the MPEP, this is not solely limited to computers but includes other technology that, recited in an equivalent to “apply it,” is a mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that technology.
Claims 1 and 10 recite the following additional elements:
an evaluation apparatus comprising an evaluation area configured to;
one or more cameras arranged;
at least one processor configured to;
a database.
Certain additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f): at least one processor and a database. Applicant has described a processor and a database generically in the disclosure, at Specification [0038 and 0043], as filed. Applicant has also broadly defined the evaluation apparatus comprising an evaluation area within the disclosure; see Specification [0041], which includes: “…for example, a kiosk or other evaluation apparatus,…”.
The cameras may be more technical that a generic device, however, they are recited as a tool to perform an abstract idea; to capture images. Noting that this describes using this device in its ordinary capacity (to receive image data), the recitation of one or more cameras is also a mere instruction to apply an exception, as detailed at MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B of eligibility analysis, the Examiner has determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea within a computer environment to perform the steps that define the abstract idea. As discussed above, the additional elements of: (an evaluation apparatus comprising an evaluation area; one or more cameras; at least one processor; a database), amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and is equivalent to the words “apply it,” per MPEP 2106.05(f). These elements basically describe use of a computer and other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data).
Claims 2 – 5 and 11 – 14 are rejected based upon their dependencies to rejected claims 1 and 10, but could show allowability if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. These claims recite elements that do not describe abstract ideas (a plurality of lights and mirrors) that combine in an unconventional manner to retrieve IMES and identify micro defects. Thus, amended claims may be shown to integrate the identified mental process into a practical application.
Dependent claims 6 – 9 and 15 – 18 contain limitations that are further recitations to the same abstract idea found in claims 1 and 10. Recitations to validating a repair based on determined change, determining whether to approve or deny a plan, determine a deterioration rate, and selecting a context are further evaluations, judgments, and opinions, and are therefore, directed to the mental process identified. See MPEP 2106.04. These claims further rely on the processor to perform the mental process. This amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f), and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 4 – 11, and 13 – 18, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 8, 13, 15, 23, 24, 32, 33, and 37, of U.S. Patent No. 12,125,073.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claims 1, 2, 4 – 11, and 13 – 18, are anticipated by the patent claims.
Those certain items that are not patently distinct, but are nonetheless anticipated includes a second evaluation point that is temporally distinct from the first evaluation point. The instant applicant discloses this aspect as being able to compare the state of the POD between at least two timestamps, or, “evaluations at two or more time intervals.” See [0258 and 0343]. This is anticipated within claim 8 of the patent, which recites a first evaluation and timestamp corresponding to a time before a repair, and a second evaluation and timestamp corresponding to a time after a repair, and the repair is effected at a time between the first evaluation and the second evaluation. This claiming describes two evaluation times being temporally distinct.
Those claim elements within the application that are not patentably distinct to the patent claims are illustrated (and highlighted as expressed in the patent claims) below.
Application 18/771,003
Patent 12,125,073
(Application 17/071,717)
Claim 1
Claim 1
A system for evaluating previously-owned electronic devices, comprising:
an evaluation apparatus comprising
an evaluation area configured to receive a previously owned electronic device(POD);
one or more cameras arranged to capture images of the POD within the evaluation area; and
at least one processor configured to:
uniquely identify the POD:
capture, using the one or more cameras, a first set of one or more images of the POD during a first evaluation point:
perform a first evaluation of the POD using the first set of one or more images;
store in a database a first evaluation dataset from the first evaluation in association with a first timestamp:
capture, using the one or more cameras, a second set of one or more images of the POD during a second evaluation point that is temporally distinct from the first evaluation point:
perform a second evaluation of the POD using the second set of one or more images;
store in the database a second evaluation dataset from the second evaluation in association with a second timestamp; and
compare the first evaluation dataset and the second evaluation dataset to determine a change in a condition of the POD between the first evaluation point and the second evaluation point.
A system for evaluating previously-owned electronic devices, comprising:
a database; a central server computer comprising a first processor; and an evaluation apparatus comprising: an evaluation area configured to temporarily include within it a previously-owned electronic device (POD);
one or more cameras arranged to capture images of the POD within the evaluation area;
comprising a first processor;
wherein one or both the first processor and the second processor are configured to: uniquely identify the POD;
a plurality of lights configured to, when activated, illuminate the evaluation area; and a second processor configured to: capture one or more first images of the POD in the evaluation area while activating respective lights of the plurality of lights in accordance with a sequence of operations; and transmit the one or more first images to at least one of the database, the central server, or a remote operator; wherein one or both the first processor and the second processor are configured to: uniquely identify the POD; determine the sequence of operations; capture, using the one or more cameras and while controlling the plurality of lights according to the sequence of operations to illuminate the evaluation area, at respective times a first set of one or more images of the POD during a first evaluation point and a second set of one or more images of the POD during a second evaluation point; perform, for each of the evaluation points, respective evaluations of the POD based on the respective corresponding set of one or more images; and store in the database, following the first evaluation point, a first evaluation dataset from the evaluation of the first set of one or more images in association with a first timestamp, and, following the second evaluation point, a second evaluation dataset based on the evaluation of the second set of one or more images in association with a second timestamp;
Claim 8 The system according to claim 1, wherein the first timestamp corresponds to a time before a repair of the POD and the second timestamp corresponds to a time after the repair;
Claim 23 The system according to claim 1, wherein said one or more of the first processor and the second processor are further configured to: comparing the stored first evaluation dataset and the second evaluation dataset;
Claim 33 The system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more of the first processor and the second processor are configured to: compare respective conditions of the POD based on the respective evaluations.
Claim 2
Claim 1
The system of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of lights configured to illuminate the evaluation area, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to capture the first set of one or more images while controlling the plurality of lights according to a sequence of operations.
a plurality of lights configured to, when activated, illuminate the evaluation area; and a second processor configured to: capture one or more first images of the POD in the evaluation area while activating respective lights of the plurality of lights in accordance with a sequence of operations;
Claim 3
The system of claim 1, further comprising one or more mirrors arranged within the evaluation area to capture reflections of one or more sides of the POD, wherein the first set of one or more images includes the captured reflections.
See BOWLES reference below
Claim 4
Claim 3
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to uniquely identify the POD by retrieving an International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI), a MAC address, or by performing optical character recognition on a display screen of the POD reflection
The system according to claim 2, wherein the uniquely identify the POD further comprises: providing for instructing a user of the POD to cause the POD to display its IMEI on the screen of the POD and to insert the POD with the IMEI displayed into the evaluation area; and controlling the one or more cameras to capture the second image, when the POD is in the evaluation area and the IMEI is displayed on the screen of the POD.
Claim 5
Claim 32
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to uniquely identify the POD by using microdefects and/or micro-differences detected in the first set of one or more images.
The system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more of the first processor and the second processor are configured to: use microdefects and/or micro-differences detected in the first images at least in part as the unique identification.
Claim 6
Claim 8
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to validate a repair of the POD based on the determined change in the condition of the POD, wherein the repair is effected at a time between the first evaluation point and the second evaluation point.
validate a repair based on the compare, wherein the repair is effected at a time between the first evaluation time and the second evaluation time.
Claim 33 compare respective conditions of the POD based on the respective evaluations; and validate the POD based on the compare.
Claim 7
Claim 13
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine whether to approve or deny a protection plan claim based on the determined change in the condition of the POD.
whether to approve or deny the protection plan claim
Claim 33 compare respective conditions of the POD based on the respective evaluations; and validate the POD based on the compare.
Claim 8
Claim 15
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine a deterioration rate associated with the POD based on the first evaluation and the second evaluation.
The system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more of the first processor and the second processor are configured to: determine, based on the first evaluation and the second evaluation, a deterioration rate associated with the POD.
Claim 9
Claim 24
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to select a context from a plurality of preconfigured contexts stored in the database, and process attributes from the first evaluation dataset or the second evaluation dataset based on the selected context.
The system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more of the first processor and the second processor are configured to: select, for each of the evaluations, a context from the database storing a plurality of contexts, the captured images, and evaluation session attributes determined from the evaluation; process the evaluation session attributes based on the selected context,
Claim 10
Claim 37
A method for evaluating previously-owned electronic devices, the method comprising: receiving a previously-owned electronic device (POD) in an evaluation area of an evaluation apparatus,
the evaluation apparatus comprising one or more cameras arranged to capture images of the POD within the evaluation area;
uniquely identifying, by at least one processor, the POD;
capturing, using the one or more cameras, a first set of one or more images of the POD during a first evaluation point;
performing, by the at least one processor, a first evaluation of the POD using the first set of one or more images;
storing in a database a first evaluation dataset from the first evaluation in association with a first timestamp;
capturing, using the one or more cameras, a second set of one or more images of the POD during a second evaluation point that is temporally distinct from the first evaluation point;
performing, by the at least one processor, a second evaluation of the POD using the second set of one or more images;
storing in the database a second evaluation dataset from the second evaluation in association with a second timestamp; and
comparing, by the at least one processor, the first evaluation dataset and the second evaluation dataset to determine a change in a condition of the POD between the first evaluation point and the second evaluation point.
A method for evaluating previously-owned electronic devices performed by a first processor of a central server and a second processor of an evaluation apparatus, the method comprising: uniquely identify a previously owned electronic device (POD) provided to an evaluation area of the evaluation apparatus,
wherein the evaluation apparatus comprises one or more cameras arranged to capture images of the POD within the evaluation area,
and a plurality of lights configured to, when activated, illuminate the evaluation area; determine the sequence of operations; capture, using the one or more cameras and while controlling the plurality of lights according to the sequence of operations to illuminate the evaluation area, at respective times, a first set of one or more images of the POD during a first evaluation point
and a second set of one or more images of the POD during a second evaluation point; perform, for each of the evaluation points, respective evaluations of the POD based on the respective corresponding set of one or more images; and
store in a database, following the first evaluation point, a first evaluation dataset from the evaluation of the first set of one or more images in association with a first timestamp, and, following the second evaluation point, a second evaluation dataset based on the evaluation of the second set of one or more images in association with a second timestamp.
Claim 33 The system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more of the first processor and the second processor are configured to: compare respective conditions of the POD based on the respective evaluations.
Claim 11
Claim 1
The method of claim 10, wherein the evaluation apparatus further comprises a plurality of lights configured to illuminate the evaluation area, and
wherein capturing the first set of one or more images comprises capturing the first set of one or more images while controlling the plurality of lights according to a sequence of operations
and a plurality of lights configured to, when activated, illuminate the evaluation area; determine the sequence of operations;
capture, using the one or more cameras and while controlling the plurality of lights according to the sequence of operations to illuminate the evaluation area
Claim 12
The method of claim 10, wherein the evaluation apparatus further comprises one or more mirrors arranged within the evaluation area to capture reflections of one or more sides of the POD, and wherein the first set of one or more images includes the captured reflections.
See BOWLES reference below
Claim 13
Claim 3
The method of claim 10, wherein uniquely identifying the POD comprises retrieving an International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI), a MAC address, or performing optical character recognition on a display screen of the POD.
The system according to claim 2, wherein the uniquely identify the POD further comprises: providing for instructing a user of the POD to cause the POD to display its IMEI on the screen of the POD and to insert the POD with the IMEI displayed into the evaluation area; and controlling the one or more cameras to capture the second image, when the POD is in the evaluation area and the IMEI is displayed on the screen of the POD.
Claim 14
Claim 32
The method of claim 10, wherein uniquely identifying the POD comprises using microdefects and/or micro-differences detected in the first set of one or more images.
The system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more of the first processor and the second processor are configured to: use microdefects and/or micro-differences detected in the first images at least in part as the unique identification.
Claim 15
Claim 8
The method of claim 10, further comprising validating a repair of the POD based on the determined change in the condition of the POD, wherein the repair is effected at a time between the first evaluation point and the second evaluation point.
validate a repair based on the compare, wherein the repair is effected at a time between the first evaluation time and the second evaluation time.
Claim 33 compare respective conditions of the POD based on the respective evaluations; and validate the POD based on the compare.
Claim 16
Claim 13
The method of claim 10, further comprising determining whether to approve or deny a protection plan claim based on the determined change in the condition of the POD.
whether to approve or deny the protection plan claim
Claim 33 compare respective conditions of the POD based on the respective evaluations; and validate the POD based on the compare.
Claim 17
Claim 15
The method of claim 10, further comprising determining a deterioration rate associated with the POD based on the first evaluation and the second evaluation.
wherein the one or more of the first processor and the second processor are configured to: determine, based on the first evaluation and the second evaluation, a deterioration rate associated with the POD.
Claim 18
Claim 24
The method of claim 10, further comprising selecting a context from a plurality of preconfigured contexts stored in the database, and processing attributes from the first evaluation dataset or the second evaluation dataset based on the selected context
wherein the one or more of the first processor and the second processor are configured to: select, for each of the evaluations, a context from the database storing a plurality of contexts, the captured images, and evaluation session attributes determined from the evaluation; process the evaluation session attributes based on the selected context, the processing resulting in at least one contextual attribute corresponding to one of the evaluation session attributes; and generate an evaluation report for the evaluation, the generated evaluation report including a description of the at least one contextual attribute.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 8, 13, 15, 23, 24, 32, 33, and 37, of U.S. Patent No. 12,125,073, in view of Bowles (US 2013/019236).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, U.S. Patent No. 12,125,073 discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 10, above.
Not disclosed by U.S. Patent No. 12,125,073 is: further comprising one or more mirrors arranged within the evaluation area to capture reflections of one or more sides of the POD, wherein the first set of one or more images includes the captured reflections.
However, Bowles discloses a mini-kiosk (an evaluation apparatus comprising an evaluation area), and teaches this apparatus comprises “a plurality of mirror and the plurality of mirrors allow for obtaining a multi-angled views of an electronic device placed within the inspection area, (claim 4), and adds, “wherein the plurality of mirrors in the inspection area allow for an image of a reflection of an electronic device placed on a transparent surface”, (claim 8). Bowles, at [0038], teaches imaging based on reflections, and illustrates further at Fig 9.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use one or mirrors to capture reflections of the electronic device, per the method of Bowles, within the method and system within U.S. Patent No. 12,125,073, because this describes applying a known technique (mirrors) to view an expected reflection, which can then be imaged and analyzed. Bowles teaches a mirror or reflective surface will allow for the cameras to obtain multi-angle views, as discussed at [0013 and 0038].
Claims Distinguished Over Prior Art
Regarding claims 1 – 18, the prior art does not teach nor suggest a system or method as currently claimed. The most relevant art is (Bowles), which discloses a method and system for identifying mobile phones and other electronic devices. Other art (Bowles, Silva, Abdelmalak) teach kiosks for recycling devices. However, the cited prior art of record does not disclose the following claimed elements, in combination, within claims 1 and 10: uniquely identify the POD: perform a first evaluation of the POD using the first set of one or more images; compare the first evaluation dataset and the second evaluation dataset to determine a change in a condition of the POD between the first evaluation point and the second evaluation point. Accordingly, the current claim set is distinguished over the prior art.
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 DON EDMONDS whose telephone number is (571) 272-6171. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm EST.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
/SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
DONALD J. EDMONDS
Examiner
Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights