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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on January 15, 2026 cancelled no claims. Claims 1 and 3-5 were amended and no new claims were added. Thus, the currently pending claims addressed below are claims 1-7.
Claim Objections
The amendment filed on January 15, 2026 has overcome the objections, to claims 3-5, raised in the Office Action dated July 15, 2026. Thus, the objections are hereby withdrawn.
Claims 1-7 are objected to because of the following informalities: Independent clam 1, as currently amended, recites “automatically match the user's requested date, start time, and end time with availability data associated with the desired personal property in the directory prior to sending the owner the request to join the system; automatically send the owner a request to join the system and rent the desired personal property to the user of the user smartphone, wherein the request includes the date, the start time, and the end time for renting the desired personal property”. The claimed first “the request” does not have proper antecedent basis to a previously claimed “a request” and, as such, should recite “a request”. The underlined “a request” to the request claimed in the previous step and, as such, should recite “the request”.
Dependent claims 2-7 fail to correct the issue present in the claim from which they depend and, as such are objected to by virtue of dependency
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7 are directed to a system which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes).
However, claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim(s) 1 recite(s) the following abstract idea:
obtaining from a publicly-accessible source, independent of owner input, personal property information independent of owner input, wherein the personal property information includes property addresses with corresponding owners and contact information of the owners; wherein the owners have not accessed a personal property sharing website
pre-populate a directory with the personal property information;
storing the directory;
receiving and processing a signal that the user smartphone, operating the mobile app, has accessed the system and is searching for personal property to rent, wherein the personal property is property that is temporary or moveable;
sending, for display, the personal property information corresponding to available personal properties to rent, wherein a desired personal property to be rented is owned by an owner that has not accessed the system;
receiving a request, in response to receiving input selected and sent by a user, wherein the request includes a date, a start time, and an end time for rending the desired personal property;
identifying, automatically, the owner of the desired personal property, by querying the directory in response to the request sent by the user;
matching, automatically, the user’s requested date, start time, and end time with availability data associated with the desired personal property in the directory prior to sending the owner a request to join the system.
sending, automatically, the owner the request to join the system and rent the desired personal property to the user, the request includes the date, the start time, and the end time for renting the desired personal property; and
reserving the desired personal property for the user in response to the owner/renter joining the system and accepting the request through the owner/renter.
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely advertising marketing and sales related activities or behaviors because they merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based on the analysis, generate a reservation based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of a server having a memory, a renter computing device coupled to the server, and a smartphone operating a mobile app coupled to the server comprising a user interface with a button for obtaining user input.
The following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, merely perform generic computer function of processing (e.g., storing data), communicating (e.g., transmitting and receiving data), and displaying:
obtaining from a publicly-accessible source, independent of owner input, personal property information independent of owner input, wherein the personal property information includes property addresses with corresponding owners and contact information of the owners; wherein the owners have not accessed a personal property sharing website (receiving data);
pre-populate a directory with the personal property information (storing data);
storing the directory in the memory (storing data);
receive and process a signal that the user smartphone, operating the mobile app, has accessed the system and is searching for personal property to rent, wherein the personal property is property that is temporary or moveable (receiving and processing data);
send, for display, the personal property information corresponding to available personal properties to rent, wherein a desired personal property to be rented is owned by an owner that has not accessed the system (sending data);
receive a request from the user smartphone through a user interface, wherein the request includes a date, a start time, and an end time for renting the desired personal property, and wherein a request button is selected by a user of the user smartphone to send the request to the server (receiving data); and
automatically send the owner the request to join the system and rent the desired personal property to the user of the user smartphone, wherein the request includes the date, the start time, and the end time for renting the desired personal property (sending data).
The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e., “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes)
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a server having a memory storing personal property information, a renter computing device coupled to the server, and a smartphone operating a mobile app coupled to the server comprising a user interface with a button for obtaining user input, (which are general-purpose computers and generic computer components as evidenced from paragraph 17 of the applicant’s specification; Usability.gov, User Interface Elements, July 8, 2013, https://web.archive.org/web/ 20130708215553/http://www.usability.gov:80/how-to-and-tools/methods/user-interface-elements.html, pages 1-6; and the Intellectual Venture I v. Capital One decision), to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a general-purpose computer with generic computer components.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). 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 the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires general-purpose computers with generic computing components communicating over a general-purpose network (which are general-purpose computers and generic computer components as evidenced from paragraph 17 of the applicant’s specification; Usability.gov, User Interface Elements, July 8, 2013, https://web.archive.org/web/20130708215553/http://www.usability.gov:80 /how-to-and-tools/methods/user-interface-elements.html, pages 1-6; and the Intellectual Venture I v. Capital One decision); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility. Finally, the following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, would be considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, storing and/or transmitting data:
obtaining from a publicly-accessible source, independent of owner input, personal property information independent of owner input, wherein the personal property information includes property addresses with corresponding owners and contact information of the owners; wherein the owners have not accessed a personal property sharing website (receiving data);
pre-populate a directory with the personal property information (storing data);
storing the directory in the memory (storing data);
receive and process a signal that the user smartphone, operating the mobile app, has accessed the system and is searching for personal property to rent, wherein the personal property is property that is temporary or moveable (receiving and processing data);
send, for display, the personal property information corresponding to available personal properties to rent, wherein a desired personal property to be rented is owned by an owner that has not accessed the system (sending data);
receive a request from the user smartphone through a user interface, wherein the request includes a date, a start time, and an end time for renting the desired personal property, and wherein a request button is selected by a user of the user smartphone to send the request to the server (receiving data); and
automatically send the owner the request to join the system and rent the desired personal property to the user of the user smartphone, wherein the request includes the date, the start time, and the end time for renting the desired personal property (sending data).
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
The dependent claims 2-7 appear to merely further limit the abstract idea by further limiting the type of personal property information which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 2); adding additional steps directed to a user applying a rating to a renter and/or a renter applying a rating to a user, storing and aggregating a plurality of ratings associated with the renter and/or the user, retrieving the ratings, sending the ratings for display to the user and/or the renter, and displaying the rating which are all considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 2-6); and further limiting the type of personal property which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 7), and therefore only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes), does/do not include any new additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and as such are “directed to” said abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2A Prong Two=Yes); and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No)..
Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 1-7 are not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1-7 are 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.
Independent claim 1 has been amended to recite:
pre-populate the directory with personal property information corresponding to personal properties owned by owners that have not accessed the system, wherein the personal property information is obtained from a publicly-accessible source independent of owner input;
receive and process a signal that the user smartphone, operating the mobile app, has accessed the system and is searching for personal property to rent, wherein the personal property is property that is temporary or moveable;
send, for display, the personal property information corresponding to available personal properties to rent, wherein a desired personal property to be rented is owned by an owner that has not accessed the system;
receive a request from the user smartphone through a user interface, wherein the request includes a date, a start time, and an end time for renting the desired personal property, and wherein a request button is selected by a user of the user smartphone to send the request to the server;
automatically identify the owner of the desired personal property, by querying the directory in response to the request sent by the user smartphone; and
automatically match the user's requested date, start time, and end time with availability data associated with the desired personal property in the directory prior to sending the owner the request to join the system.
The examiner has been unable to find support for these limitations in the applicant’s disclosure.
First, the applicant’s disclosure does not disclose the applicant’s invention “pre-populating a directory”. The terms “pre-populate”, “pre-populated”, “pre-populating”, “populate”, “populated”, or “populating”. Thus, it would not appear that the applicant’s disclosure has support for performing any type of pre-populating. As such, it is clear that claim 1 has been amended to include subject matter that fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Second, the only mention in the applicant’s disclosure of a “directory” is found in paragraph 23, where it is disclosed that “the server may be coupled to a publicly-accessible directory of property addresses with corresponding owners of the properties located at those addresses and with contact information of those owners”. While it is true that this paragraph supports accessing a pre-populated publicly-accessible directory, there is no support in the applicant’s disclosure for the applicant’s server performing said pre-populating. Instead, it supports merely accessing a publicly-accessible directory which has already been pre-populated with property addresses with corresponding owners of the properties located at those addresses and with contact information of those owners. As such, it is clear that claim 1 has been amended to include subject matter that fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Third, the applicant’s disclosure does not have support for “pre-populate the directory with personal property information corresponding to personal properties owned by owners that have not accessed the system”. According to paragraph 23, a user may see a parking space that a user would like to rent, but the owner of the parking space is not a part of the system. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this disclosure it that the user sees the parking space, searches the system for parking spaces near them, as disclosed in paragraph 22, and the parking space they are interested in is not one of the ones returned from the search, so the owner of that particular parking spot is not part of the system. Next, paragraph 23 discloses that the user sends a request including information about the parking space they are interest in to the server and the server, wherein the request must include at least the street address, city, state, and zip code of the parking spot (because the publicly-accessible directory only stores “property addresses with corresponding owners of the properties located at those addresses and with contact information of those owners”). According to paragraph 23, the server then identifies the owner of the parking space by querying the publicly-accessible directory and sends the owner a request to join the system and rent a parking space to the requester. As such, while the publicly-accessible directory accessed does include owners that have not listed the parking space on the system it is not limited to only such owners. Based on paragraph 23, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the publicly-accessible directory is that it contains a plurality of property addresses with corresponding owners of the properties and contact information for said owners, wherein the plurality of property addresses includes property addresses of owners that have not either joined the system and listed that parking space on the system, or have joined the system but not listed that particular parking space on the system. In either case, the publicly-available directory is not only pre-populated “with personal property information corresponding to personal properties owned by owners that have not accessed the system”, it would be pre-populated with other personal property information as well. Additionally, nowhere in the applicant’s disclosure is it disclosed that the applicant’s invention is capable of determine who has or who has not accessed the system. In fact, there does not be any identifiable way for the system to perform such an identification. Anyone that downloads the mobile application appears to be able to access the system without providing any identifiable information when downloading or using the application. As such, the applicant’s disclosure does not support a situation in which the system would be aware of whether owners that not accessed the system. Based on paragraph 23, the system receives the request from the user and based on this request searches the directory, finds the name and contact information of the owner, assumes they have not joined the system and listed any other parking spaces on the system, and sends them a request to join the system. There is no disclosure regarding when determining based on the owner information whether the owner of that specific parking space has joined the system and not yet listed any parking spaces or listed other parking spaces but not the particular parking space. As such, there does not appear to be support in the applicant’s specification which would support the directory including only property information corresponding owners that have not joined the system. As such, it is clear that claim 1 has been amended to include subject matter that fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Fourth, the applicant’s disclosure does not have support for both “a directory” and “wherein the personal property information is obtained from a publicly-accessible source independent of owner input”. The applicant’s disclosure of any type of publicly-accessible source of data that includes personal property information is found in paragraph 23 where the server accesses a publicly-accessible directory. There is no support for any other type of publicly-available data source in the applicant’s disclosure. However, based on claim 1, the applicants invention obtains personal property information from a publicly-accessible source, which must be the publicly-accessible directory and then “pre-populates a directory”. However, based on the applicant’s disclosure, the only step the invention performs is accessing the publicly-accessible directory and sending the owner a request to join and list the property. There is no support for the applicant’s invention performing any type of storing the information received from the publicly-accessible directory, much less pre-populating a directory with such information, and the only time it accesses the publicly-accessible directory is when it obtains information from the directory for one single owner of a specific parking space based on a user identifying an address of said parking space. As such, it is clear that claim 1 has been amended to include subject matter that fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Fifth, the applicant’s disclosure does not support “a publicly-accessible source independent of owner input”. The applicant’s disclosure does not support the information in the publicly-accessible directory being independent of user input. There is no disclosure regarding how the data in the publicly-accessible directory was obtained. As such, there is no way for the applicant’s invention to guarantee that the information in the publicly-accessible directory was not input by the owner themselves. Likewise, the applicant’s invention does not require an identification of the user sending request to the server for the parking space. As such, there is no way for the applicant’s invention to guarantee that the user requesting the parking space is not an owner of the parking space that is testing the application to see how it works. As such, the applicant’s invention cannot be said to support “a publicly-accessible source independent of owner input”. As such, it is clear that claim 1 has been amended to include subject matter that fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Sixth, based on the applicant’s disclosure in at least paragraph 22, when a user searches for personal property to rent that is near the user and available for a user-entered date, the server sends for display to the user “available parking spaces that include the location of the parking space(s), the time available at the searched date, and the parking spots available”. As such, every one of the owners of these properties is owned by an owner that has previously joined the system and listed the parking space with the system. There is no support in the applicant’s disclosure for sending for display to the user parking spots of owners that have not joined the system and not previously indicated by the owner as available for the requested date. Instead, paragraph 23 supports that the user notes that the parking spot they are looking at is not on the list of parking spaces received from the server and sends a request to the server to rent the parking spot they are looking at. The server then: accesses the publicly-accessible directory; identifies the owner and contact information for said parking space; and sends a request to said owner for the owner to join the system and list the parking space. As such, there is no support for sending for display personal property information corresponding to available personal properties to rent, wherein a desired personal property to be rented is owned by an owner that has not accessed the system based on a request from a user searching for personal property to rent. The server, based on the applicant’s disclosure, would neither be able to identify such a property based on a user performing a search, nor be able to determine the “availability” of such a property. As such, an owner that has not joined the system and not listed the property as available, could not be sent for display based on a user searching for personal property as claimed. Especially before identifying the owner and requesting them to join and list the personal property, because there is no way for the server to determine such availability before the owner joins the system and listed the property. As such, the applicant’s invention cannot be said to support “a publicly-accessible source independent of owner input”. As such, it is clear that claim 1 has been amended to include subject matter that fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Seventh, the applicant’s disclosure does not support the server receiving a request that includes a date, a start time, and an end time for renting the desired property and automatically identifying the owner of the desire personal property. According to paragraph 23 of the applicant’s disclosure, the publicly-accessible directory only contains “property addresses with corresponding owners of the properties located at those addresses and with contact information of those owners”. As such, the system could not automatically identify a parking space based only on a date, a start time, and an end time for renting the desired property, because such information is not stored in the publicly-accessible directory. According to both paragraph 23 and figure 7, the request must include the street address, city, state, zip code. Only once the street address, city, state, zip code is received from the user would the applicant’s invention be able to “automatically identify the owner of the desired personal property” in response to the request. As such, it is clear that claim 1 has been amended to include subject matter that fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Eighth, there is no support in the applicant’s disclosure for automatically matching the users request date, start time and end time with availability data associated with the desired property in the directory prior to sending the owner a request to join the system. As disclosed in paragraph 23, the directory only includes “property addresses with corresponding owners of the properties located at those addresses and with contact information of those owners”. As such, there is no way for the applicant’s invention to identify the desired property in the directory based on the users request date, start time and end time, much less perform any type of matching of the availability of such a desired property to the users request date, start time and end time. There is no support in the applicant’s disclosure for the publicly-accessible directory containing any type of availability information. It appears that the only way for the applicant’s invention to determine whether a user desired property of an owner that has not joined the system is available for the requested date, start time and end time is after the server sends a request to join the system and rent the property for the users request date, start time and end time. Even then, no matching is performed. Instead, the owner joins the system and agrees to rent the property on the requested date, start time and end time, which thereby reserves the parking spot for the requestor for the dates and times requested. As such, it is clear that claim 1 has been amended to include subject matter that fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Dependent claims 2-7 fail to cure the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend and, as such, are rejected by virtue of dependency.
For the purpose of prosecuting the claims with regards to prior art under 35 USC 103, the examiner is going to interpret the limitations of claim 1 in a manner consistent with the applicant’s disclosure, said interpretation being:
Claim 1: Hooper discloses a personal property sharing system comprising:
a renter computing device communicably coupled to a server;
a user smartphone operating a mobile app communicably coupled to the server; and
the server having a memory and a processor executing the steps of:
storing first personal property information of a first plurality of owners, wherein each of the first plurality of owners has joined the system and listed at least one personal property for rent, wherein the at least one personal property of each owner is property that is temporary or moveable.
receiving and processing a user search request for temporary or movable personal property to rent, wherein the user search request was transmitted from the smartphone in response to a user initiating the request using a graphical user interface of the mobile app, wherein the user search request includes at least a location associated with the user and a first requested date;
sending, for display on the graphical user interface, the first personal property information of the first plurality of owners near the location associated with the user and available for rental on the first requested date;
receiving, from the smartphone, a specific personal property request, wherein the specific personal property request was transmitted from the smartphone in response to a user initiating the specific personal property request using the graphical user interface of the mobile app, wherein the specific personal property request includes at least a street address, a city, a state, a zip code, a date, a start time and an end time the user desires to rent a specific temporary or movable personal property;
accessing a publicly-accessible directory to obtain contact information and ownership information of the specific temporary or movable personal property the user desires to rent;
sending, a join and rent offer, to an owner of the specific temporary or movable personal property the user desires to rent, the join and rent offer including the date, the start time and the end time the user desires to rent the specific temporary or movable personal property and receiving from the owner, an acceptance of the join and rent offer; and
reserving the specific temporary or movable personal property for the user in response to receiving the acceptance of the join and rent offer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hooper et al. (PGPUB 2021/0201428) in view of Gazlay et al. (PGPUB: 2019/0005739).
Claim 1: Hooper discloses a personal property sharing system comprising:
a renter computing device communicably coupled to a server (Paragraphs 145 and 137: renter has a computing device through which communications with the server occur);
a user smartphone operating a mobile app communicably coupled to the server (Paragraph 142-143: potential buyers (renter user) can access the server using a data processing device such as a smartphone executing a mobile app that is coupled to the server; Paragraph 159: a potential buyer may include a person, corporation, or any entity that may be looking to buy, rent, or lease, a property); and
the server having a memory and a processor (Paragraph 142: the system is implemented by a server) executing the steps of:
storing first personal property information of a first plurality of owners, wherein each of the first plurality of owners has joined the system and listed at least one personal property for rent, wherein the at least one personal property of each owner is property that is temporary or moveable (Paragraphs 120-121: as property owners join the system they are stored in a user database; Paragraph 157: the property may be personal property (i.e. any property that is not real property) and the transaction being sought may be a rental).
receiving and processing a user search request for temporary or movable personal property to rent, wherein the user search request was transmitted from the smartphone in response to a user initiating the request using a graphical user interface of the mobile app, wherein the user search request includes at least a location associated the user and a first requested date; sending, for display on the graphical user interface, the first personal property information of the first plurality of owners near the location associated with the user and available for rental on the first requested date;
Hooper discloses receiving and processing a user search request for temporary or movable personal property to rent, wherein the user search request was transmitted from the smartphone in response to a user initiating the request using a graphical user interface of the mobile app, wherein the user search request includes at least a location associated the user in at least paragraphs 119, 122, 130, and 142 (Paragraph 119: the input module receives input from users and, where necessary, formats or adjusts the input to a suitable form for the system; as an example, free form input (e.g. user entered addresses) can be formatted so that the system can properly search for the addresses; the input module can also determine if the user input is suitable or not and can continue to ask for a proper input if such is not detected; Paragraph 122: the locator module determines suitable properties based on the users location; Paragraph 128: recommendation module searches the property database to find properties that match the requirements; Paragraph 130: the recommendation module is used to make recommendations based on user entered inputs; a user may select an option such that the system seeks properties and makes recommendations based on what the user has entered; the user enters desired parameters for the property sought including price range, location (i.e. area/neighborhood), number of rooms, number of bathrooms, amenities nearby, public transportation available, etc.; Paragraph 142: user smartphone operating a mobile application).
Hooper also discloses sending, for display on the graphical user interface, the first personal property information of the first plurality of owners near the location associated with the user in at least paragraphs 128, 130, and 142; (Paragraph 128: recommendation module searches the property database to find properties that match the requirements; Paragraph 130: the recommendation module is used to make recommendations based on user entered inputs; a user may select an option such that the system seeks properties and makes recommendations based on what the user has entered; the user enters desired parameters for the property sought including price range, location (i.e. area/neighborhood), number of rooms, number of bathrooms, amenities nearby, public transportation available, etc.; Paragraph 142: user smartphone operating a mobile application);
While Hooper also discloses that the system can be used for rental listing for renting personal property in at least paragraphs 132 and 157, he does not specifically state that the search request includes a first requested date and the search response includes personal property available for rental on the first requested date.
However, the analogous art of Gazlay discloses that it is known to include in the search request from the user a date for renting the desired personal property; and to include in the search result the personal property available for rental on the first requested date in at least paragraphs 33, 41, 57, 64, and 67.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of Hooper to include in the search request from the user a date for renting the desired personal property; and to include in the search result the personal property available for rental on the first requested date as disclosed by Gazlay.
The rationale for doing so is that it would be obvious to try. There are a finite number of identifiable and predictable ways to implement the invention of Hooper for renting personal property with a reasonable expectation of success. One such identifiable and predictable ways to implement the invention of Hooper for renting personal property with a reasonable expectation of success is for the user’s search request to include a first requested rental date, and the search results to include personal property available for rental on the first requested date, as the rental of personal property is usually for a given period of time and starts on a specific date.
receiving, from the smartphone, a specific personal property request, wherein the specific personal property request was transmitted from the smartphone in response to a user initiating the specific personal property request using the graphical user interface of the mobile app, wherein the specific personal property request includes at least a street address, a city, a state, a zip code, a date, a start time and an end time the user desires to rent a specific temporary or movable personal property.
Hooper and Gazlay, as previously combined, disclose receiving, from the smartphone, a specific personal property request, wherein the specific personal property request was transmitted from the smartphone in response to a user initiating the specific personal property request using the graphical user interface of the mobile app wherein the specific personal property request includes at the address of a specific temporary or movable personal property the user desires to rent in at least paragraphs 119, 130, and 142 of Hooper (Paragraph 119: the input module receives input from users and, where necessary, formats or adjusts the input to a suitable form for the system; as an example, free form input (e.g. user entered addresses) can be formatted so that the system can properly search for the addresses; the input module can also determine if the user input is suitable or not and can continue to ask for a proper input if such is not detected; Paragraph 130: the recommendation module may also be used to make recommendations based on user entered inputs; a user may select an option such that the system seeks properties and makes recommendations based on what the user has entered; the user enters desired parameters for the property sought including price range, location (i.e. area/neighborhood), number of rooms, number of bathrooms, amenities nearby, public transportation available, etc.; Paragraph 142: user smartphone operating a mobile application).
Hooper and Gazlay, as previously combined, do not specifically disclose that the address comprises a street address, a city, a state, a zip code, or that the specific personal property request includes a date, a start time and an end time the user desires to rent a specific temporary or movable personal property
However, the analogous art of Gazlay discloses that it is known to include, in a request to rent personal property, a street address, a city, a state, a zip code, a date, a start time and an end time in at least paragraphs 33, 41, 45, 57, 64, and 67.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the specific property request in the invention of Hooper and Gazlay, as previously combined, to include a street address, a city, a state, a zip code, a date, a start time and an end time the user desires to rent the property as disclosed by Gazlay.
The rationale for doing so is that it would be obvious to try. There are a finite number of identifiable and predictable ways to implement the invention of Hooper and Gazlay as previously combined for renting specific personal property with a reasonable expectation of success. One such identifiable and predictable ways to implement the invention of Hooper and Gazlay, as previously combined, for renting specific personal property with a reasonable expectation of success is for the user’s specific property request to include a street address, a city, a state, a zip code, a date, a start time and an end time the user desires to rent the property, as the rental of personal property is usually for a given period of time and starts on a specific date.
accessing a publicly-accessible directory to obtain contact information and ownership information of the specific temporary or movable personal property the user desires to rent (Hooper - Paragraph 129: the system is able to access databases other that the property database such as general databases that contain data about properties that are both for rent and not currently for rent; Paragraph 132: these other databases may be free to access; Paragraph 134: once activated, the contact module then receives the details about the new selected property from the database, including the contact information for the potential seller of the new selected property; this contact information may be the potential seller's email address, physical address, social media contact information, or any other address or contact information that can be used to contact the potential seller);
sending, a join and rent offer, to an owner of the specific temporary or movable personal property the user desires to rent, the join and rent offer including the date, the start time and the end time the user desires to rent the specific temporary or movable personal property and receiving from the owner, an acceptance of the join and rent offer (Hooper - Paragraph 137: once the owner has been identified (and the identity of the owner has been entered in the property database as being associated with the selected property) and the owners contact information has been found, the contact module can prepare a suitable communication for the owner; the communication, preferably, would indicate that a potential rentee (who may be named or unnamed depending on the configuration of the system) has shown interest in the selected property and would like to discuss the matter with the owner; Paragraph 139: the communication includes a means by which the owner can contact the potential rentee through the system, such as a code that the owner enters when they access the system; should the owner be interested in pursuing the matter, the owner would need to create an account on the system and enter the provided code in the communication; Paragraph 160: to assist in the monetization of the system, owners may be charged a fee to access the system and/or be placed in communication with one or more potential rentee); and
reserving the specific temporary or movable personal property for the user in response to receiving the acceptance of the join and rent offer.
Hooper and Gazlay, as currently combined, disclose facilitating the renting of the desired personal property for the user in response to the owner joining the system through the renter computing device coupling to the server and accepting the request through the renter computing device in at least paragraphs 139-140, 142-143, and 157-158 of Hooper (Paragraph 139: once both the potential seller and the potential buyer have both activated their codes and have access to the communications channel, these two parties can discuss the selected property to determine if there is any interest or possibility of exploring a sale, rental, or lease of the selected property; Paragraph 140: if the potential seller and the potential buyer are amenable to pursue the matter further, the system may be triggered to provide suitable recommendations for professionals who may assist the two parties regarding the selected property; Paragraph 157: the selected property may be sought for a rental, a lease, or any other transaction including a sale; the property being selected is not necessarily real estate; the property may be personal property (i.e. any property that is not real property) and the transaction being sought may not be a sale but may be a rental, a lease, or any other transaction affecting the property; Paragraph 142-143: potential sellers (landlord user) can access the server using a data processing device such as a desktop computer, tablet computer, laptop, smartphone, etc.; Paragraph 158: entities who may own property or who may have the ability to sell/rent or otherwise affect the ownership and/or occupancy and/or use of a selected property is included in the term “potential seller”).
While Hooper and Gazlay, as currently combined, discloses that the system can be used to facilitate the rental of real property and/or personal property in at least paragraph 157 of Hooper, and that the request includes any number of data points that may assist the potential seller in determining whether to proceed further with the matter or not in at least paragraph 138 of Hooper, Hooper and Gazlay, as currently combined, does not specifically disclose: reserving the specific temporary or movable personal property for the user in response to receiving the acceptance of the join and rent offer.
However, the analogous art of Gazlay discloses that it is known to reserve the desired personal property for the user in response to the owner joining the system at least paragraphs 42 and 48.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Hooper and Gazlay, as currently combined, to include reserving the desired personal property for the user in response to the owner joining the system as disclosed by Gazlay.
The rationale for doing so is that it merely requires combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It is clear that each element claimed is taught in either Hooper and Gazlay, as currently combined, or Gazlay. The ability to reserve the desired property as taught by Gazlay does not change or effect the normal functions of Hooper and Gazlay, as currently combined, it merely adds an additional function. Since the functionalities of the elements in Hooper and Gazlay, as currently combined, and Gazlay do not interfere with each other the results of the combination would be predictable in that a reservation for the desired property would be made.
Claim 2: Hooper and Gazlay disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the personal property information includes information selected from the group consisting of a photo of the personal property, location of the personal property, dates the personal property is available, duration the personal property is available, contact information of an owner of the personal property, and any combination thereof (Hooper - Paragraph 124: each property's database entry can include not just the address of the property but also the property's GPS coordinates but also whatever data has been gathered about that property, including the property's current owner, the property's past owners, the sale prices of the property when it had been sold in the past, estimates of the property's current value, current and past valuations of the property, past and present property taxes for the property, construction/repair history of the property, past and current indications of interest in the property, past and present indications of interest in similar properties in the same area, past listing agents for the property, current and past mortgages on the property, any liens on the property, the physical data about the property (e.g. number of rooms, number of bathrooms, size of each room, layout plans for the property, etc.), as well as any other data that may be useful in determining the history of the property and the value of the property)
Claim 5: Hooper and Gazlay disclose the system of Claim 1, wherein the server is further programmed to display a rating interface on the renter computing device, wherein a renter corresponding to the renter computing device applies a rating to a user of the user computing device.
While Hooper and Gazlay, as currently combined do not disclose displaying a rating interface on the renter computing device, wherein a renter corresponding to the renter computing device applies a rating to a user of the user computing device. The prior art of Gazlay discloses that it is known to displaying a rating interface on the renter computing device, wherein a renter corresponding to the renter computing device applies a rating to a user of the user computing device in at least paragraph 34 (parking spots and/or users associated with parking spots may accumulate reviews as other users use the parking spot and/or interact with the parking spot owner; the rating system may be a star rating system, numerical rating system, letter rating system, or any other suitable rating system).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the ability to display a rating interface on the renter computing device, wherein a renter corresponding to the renter computing device applies a rating to a user of the user computing device as disclosed by Gazlay, in the invention of Hooper and Gazlay.
The motivation for doing so is to allow future renters to assess the accuracy of property descriptors associated with the property, ease of use, and/or hospitality of the property owner (Gazlay – Paragraph 34)
Claim 6: Hooper and Gazlay disclose the system of claim 7, wherein the server is further programmed to store and aggregate a plurality of ratings associated with the user, retrieve the ratings, and send the ratings for display on the renter computing device. (Gazlay - Paragraph 34: an average review is determined from the aggregated reviews; the rating system may be a star rating system, numerical rating system, letter rating system, or any other suitable rating system; Paragraph 40: reviews are displayed in the detail panels of the search results interface).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hooper et al. (PGPUB 2021/0201428) in view of Gazlay et al. (PGPUB: 2019/0005739) in further view of Doyle (PGPUB: 2018/0060950).
Claims 3-4: The system of claim 1, wherein the server is further programmed to display a rating interface on the user computing device, wherein the user applies a rating to a renter corresponding to the renter computing device, wherein the server is further programmed to store and aggregate a plurality of ratings associated with the renter, retrieve the ratings, and send the ratings for display on the user computing device.
Hooper and Gazlay disclose:
storing the ratings, retrieving the ratings and sending the ratings for display on the user computing device (Hooper - Paragraph 138: the communication to potential seller may include a rating for the potential buyer with an explanation that the rating indicates the potential buyer's financial/reputational worthiness to purchase the property).
Hooper and Gazlay do not disclose displaying a rating interface on the user computing device, wherein the user applies a rating to a renter of the renter computing device; and aggregating a plurality of ratings associated with the renter.
However, the analogous art of Doyle discloses that it is known to display a rating interface on the user computing device, wherein the user applies a rating to a renter corresponding to the renter computing device and aggregating a plurality of rating associated with the renter in at least paragraphs 40-43.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of Hooper and Gazlay to include the rating interface for the user to rate the renter and aggregate the ratings as disclosed by Doyle.
The motivation to do so it to provide the user with renter rating information provided by other property owners upon which a decision regarding accepting or denying the request can be made (Doyle: Paragraph 43).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hooper et al. (PGPUB 2021/0201428) in view of Gazlay et al. (PGPUB: 2019/0005739) in further view of Krejci (PGPUB: 2016/0328766).
Claim 7: The system of claim 1, wherein the personal property is selected from the group consisting of a grill, a lawnmower, a bicycle, a piano, and/or a canopy.
Hooper and Gazlay disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the personal property is any property that is not real property in paragraph 157 of Hooper.
Hooper and Gazlay do not specifically state that the real property is selected from the group consisting of a grill, a lawnmower, a bicycle, a piano, and/or a canopy.
However, the analogous art of Krejci discloses that it is known to for a system that rents personal property to rent personal property selected from the group consisting of a grill, a lawnmower, a bicycle, a piano, and/or a canopy in at least paragraphs 3, 23 and 25.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to include real property selected from the group consisting of a grill, a lawnmower, a bicycle, a piano, and/or a canopy as disclosed by Krejci as the type of personal property rented in the prior art of Hooper and Gazlay.
The rationale for doing so is that it merely requires the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. The Hooper and Gazlay reference teach the rental of any type of personal property. The sole difference between Hooper and Gazlay and the claimed subject matter is that Hooper and Gazlay do not disclose personal property consisting of a grill, a lawnmower, a bicycle, a piano, and/or a canopy. The Krejci references discloses renting personal property consisting of a grill, a lawnmower, a bicycle, a piano, and/or a canopy. Since each individual element and its functions are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself – that is the substitution of the grill, lawnmower, bicycle, piano, or canopy of Krejci for the personal property of any type of Hooper and Gazlay. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues, with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection that the claim 1. as currently amended overcomes rejection because the server automatically matches the user’s requested date, start time, and end time with availability data associated with the desired personal property in the directory prior to sending the owner the request to join the system which is a specific technical processing step that goes beyond the generic computer functions of merely storing, receiving, send, and processing data. The examiner disagrees. First, as indicated in the 35 USC 112(a) rejection above, there is no support in the applicant’s disclosure of the invention performing such a step. As such, the argument is moot. Second, even if the applicant had support for such a step it would not overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection. In order to overcome a 35 USC 101 rejection under Step 2a, Prong 2, the improvement to the technology or technological field must be rooted in the “additional elements” of the claim in a manner other than merely applying the abstract idea with the general-purpose computer. In order to overcome a 35 USC 101 rejection under Step 2b, it is the “additional elements” of the claim that must be considered “significantly more”. The applicant appears to misconstrue the meaning of “additional element” as used in MPEP 2106. “Additional elements” are defined as those elements outside of the abstract idea itself. The claimed “automatically match the user’s requested date, start time, and end time with availability data associated with the desired property in the directory prior to sending the owner the request to join”, while a significant step of the abstract idea, is a part of the abstract idea itself. In fact, every significant step of the abstract idea is performed by the server. As part of the abstract idea itself, the argued limitation is not capable of transforming the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 and not capable of being considered “significantly more” under Step 2b. This is true even when one considers which steps of the abstract idea are being performed by which computer. The renter computing device performs no significant step it merely receives user input and transmits the user input. Likewise, the user smartphone performs no significant step as it merely executes software, receives user input, transmits data, receives data, and displays data. Thus, whether considered individual or as a whole, the arrangement of devices amounts to a first general-purpose computer with generic computer components the merely perform insignificant extra-solution activity of an abstract idea (i.e., rent computing device), a second general-purpose computer with generic computer components the merely perform insignificant extra-solution activity of an abstract idea, and a third general-purpose computer with generic computer components that performs every significant step of an abstract idea (i.e., server which merely applies the abstract idea). As such, the claims recite merely applying an abstract idea using three general-purpose computers, only one of which is used to perform any significant step of the abstract idea. Thus, even if the the applicant’s disclosure had support for the argued limitation, the purported technical improvement would be rooted solely in the abstract idea itself which is merely applied using the general-purpose computers. Improvements of this nature are improvements to an abstract idea which are improvements in ineligible subject matter (see the SAP v. Investpic decision: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract. Thus, the applicant’s argument is both moot and not persuasive, and the rejections have been maintained.
The applicant’s arguments with regards to the 35 USC 103 rejection are moot. The applicant’s arguments are directed to the newly amended limitations of claim 1. As indicated in the 35 USC 112(a) rejection above, the applicant’s disclosure does not have support for these argument limitations. As such, it is immaterial whether the prior art of Hooper and Gazlay disclose such limitation. The examiner has reviewed the applicant’s disclosure, in light of the newly added limitations, and came up with an amendment to the claims which is supported by the applicant’s disclosure and is a close as possible to the amendment made by the applicant. As indicated in the 35 USC 103 rejection above, each of the amended limitations as interpreted by the examiner, is taught by the prior art of Hooper and Gazlay combined. However, had the applicant’s specification had support for the pre-populating limitation this limitation is indeed disclosed in Hooper in at least paragraph 129-130 and 132 where it access free external databases of contain data about properties that are both for sale and not currently for sale, adds them to the property database, and then filters the property database to identify recommended properties where the resulting list of recommended properties includes properties that are currently not for sale. As such, not only is the applicant’s argument moot because the applicant’s disclosure does not support such pre-populating in the manner claimed, the applicant’s argument would not have been persuasive because the limitation is taught by the combined prior art of Hooper and Gazlay. Thus, the rejections have been maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chou et al, ("Optimal Decision of Reservation Policy for Private Parking Sharing System," 2018, 2018 International Conference on Computer, Control, Informatics and its Applications (IC3INA), pp. 66-71) which discloses a private parking sharing system in which the owner of a parking space rents it to a driver desiring to use the parking space on a specific data and time for a specific duration using a reservation, whereby the system use an expected revenue gap as a policy for accepting or rejecting the reservation to maximize revenue.
Galloway et al. (PGPUB: 2008/0065429) discloses a property sharing system that receives user search criteria, identifies properties satisfying the search criteria including date and duration criteria, provides identified properties to the user, receives a reservation request, the property owner confirms the reservation and the property is reserved to the requested data and duration, wherein a rating system is used to assign ratings to the user and renter.
Troung et al. (PGPUB: 2015/0081350) discloses a property sharing system that receives user search criteria, identifies properties satisfying the search criteria including date and duration criteria, provides identified properties to the user, receives a reservation request, the property owner can screen the user prior to the reservation being booked and the property is reserved to the requested data and duration, wherein a third-party rating database is used for displaying ratings.
Hwan et al. (KR20200093914) which discloses a system for sharing all types of personal property by allowing owners to list the property items and users to search for items using search criterion, the system matches the owner and user and makes reservations
Zhiqiang et al. (CN110660262) discloses a system for sharing parking spaces based on a user search request that include date and duration matching with time and availability associated with the parking spaces, available spaces are provided to the user and the user selects a space which is then reserved.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN W VAN BRAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-8198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30 am - 4 pm 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, Spar Ilana can be reached on 571-270-7537. 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.
/John Van Bramer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622