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 .
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 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of US 11706627. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claims in the pending Application are transparently found in US patent with obvious wording variations.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 1, 3, and 7. These claims collectively recite retrieving identification from a passive communication device, comparing device locations, obtaining secondary verification information, confirming the first user's identity, and authorizing the second user to access or provide information.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claim 3. Claim 3 expressly recites voice verification, biometric verification, facial recognition, and accelerometer verification information.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 1 and 7. These claims recite transmitting confirmed identity information for display to the requesting device, with a webpage or webpage link being an obvious electronic delivery format.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 1 and 7. These claims recite transmitting confirmation of the first user's identity to the requesting device, with transmission by text message being an obvious delivery format.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 1 and 7. These claims expressly authorize the second user to provide input into an account associated with the first user after the first user's identity has been verified.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 1 and 7. These claims authorize the second user to provide input following verification, and permitting that input to include a request to record the encounter would have been an obvious application feature.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 1 and 7. These claims recite a processing unit that performs identity verification, transmits confirmation, and authorizes user input, with implementation through a server-hosted application being an obvious system arrangement.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 1 and 7. These claims recite processing and storing information associated with the verified user, and transmitting such information among applications, databases, or backend systems would have been an obvious server function.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 1 and 7. These claims recite storing information received from the second user in memory associated with the first user's account, and storing a record of the transmitted access would have been an obvious recordkeeping function.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 1 and 7. These claims recite computerized storage of information associated with the verified first user, and distributed-ledger storage would have been an obvious alternative storage architecture.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 1 and 7. These claims expressly recite an account of the first user and storage of information in memory coupled to the processing unit.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 3 and 5. These claims expressly recite receiving secondary verification information from the requesting device, the authenticated mobile device, or another communicatively coupled device.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 3 and 5. These claims expressly recite accelerometer verification information, including information generated by movements of the first user while holding or operating the device.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claim 5. Claim 5 expressly recites providing instructions for obtaining secondary verification information from the first user and receiving the resulting verification information.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 2 and 7. These claims recite a browser-enabled mobile device and computerized presentation of verified identity information, rendering implementation as a web application or native application an obvious design choice.
Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of US 12167243. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claims in the pending Application are transparently found in US patent with obvious wording variations. See below for the mapping:
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 1, 3, and 18. These claims collectively recite obtaining identification from a passive communication device, comparing the locations of a requesting device and an authenticated mobile device, obtaining secondary verification information, and transmitting confirmation of the first user's identity.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claim 6. Claim 6 expressly recites voice verification, biometric verification, facial recognition, and accelerometer verification information.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 1 and 18. These claims recite electronically transmitting confirmation of the first user's identity to the requesting device, with delivery through a webpage or webpage link being an obvious electronic presentation format.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 1 and 18. These claims recite electronically transmitting identity-confirmation information to the requesting device, with a text message being an obvious delivery format.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 1 and 18. These claims provide the verified user information to the requesting device, and configuring the receiving application to accept input from the second user would have been an obvious interactive implementation.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 1 and 18. These claims provide verified access to information concerning an encounter between the first and second users, and allowing the second user to request recording of that encounter would have been an obvious application function.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 14 and 18. These claims recite computer-readable media and system implementations that perform the identity-verification process, with a server hosting the application being an obvious system arrangement.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claim 18. Claim 18 recites a processor-based system for performing the verification and transmitting information, and communication with host applications, backend scripts, databases, or distributed storage represents an obvious server implementation.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claim 18. Claim 18 recites a processor-and-memory system that provides verified access, and storing a record of the transmitted access would have been an obvious recordkeeping function. ,
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claim 18. Claim 18 recites a computerized system having processors and computer-readable memory, and configuring the system to use distributed-ledger storage would have been an obvious storage implementation.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 13, 14, and 18. These claims recite first-user identification information and computer-readable memory used in
the verification system, thereby providing for maintaining the first user's information in an account.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 3 and 14. These claims expressly recite receiving secondary verification information from the requesting device, the authenticated mobile device, or another communicatively coupled device.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claim 6. Claim 6 expressly recites accelerometer verification information, which necessarily may be generated from movements made while the first user holds or operates the device.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 5 and 17. These claims recite obtaining secondary verification information when additional verification is required, and instructing the first user to perform an action would have been an obvious way of obtaining that information.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 2, 14, and 18. These claims recite browser-enabled mobile devices and computerized implementations of the verification process, rendering the use of a web application or native application an obvious design choice.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cazanas et al. (US 20140043141, hereinafter “Cazanas”) and further in view of Gosalia (US 20190281126, hereinafter “Gosalia”)
Regarding claim 1, Cazanas discloses,
A method providing first user information to a second user upon verifying an identity of a first user in a computing system (The result is sent as a response to the computing device 103a making the inquiry (e.g., the client). In one example, a visual image of the service personnel may be displayed on the computing device or a green light, indicating that the identification information is confirmed (e.g., there are no security concerns), [0038]), the method comprising:
receiving, by a processing unit, a request from a communicatively coupled device to access information of the first user, wherein the request comprises a first set of information retrieved from a passive communication device and a second set of information related to the communicatively coupled device from which the request was sent (FIG. 2a illustrates an exemplary computing device 103d in communication with a passive security badge 105d [0030]; the officer may place their security badge 105e on (or near) a window 272 of the vehicle, while an occupant of the vehicle (e.g., the driver) places their computing device 103e in close proximity (e.g., 4 cm) to the security badge 105e. The window may be open or closed (for more security). The computing device 103e can then use the mobile communication network 101 to send a request including the identity information of the security badge 105e to confirm the identity information with the authentication server 33 [0030]; In the example of FIG. 2d, the computing device is a handheld device that is configured to receive identity information from the security badge 105e. For example, the officer may realize that the vehicle is not NFC enabled. The vehicle may not have an emblem or light that signifies that it is NFC enabled [0033]),
wherein the first set of information comprises an identification of the first user of the passive communication device (The identification information obtained from the security badge 105a may include picture information, ID number, and name of the security badge holder. In one example, the computing device includes time and/or GPS information in its request to the authentication server 33 [0036]), wherein the second set of information comprises a location of the communicatively coupled device (The identification information obtained from the security badge 105a may include picture information, ID number, and name of the security badge holder. In one example, the computing device includes time and/or GPS information in its request to the authentication server 33 [0036]);
determining, by the processing unit, whether a location match is present between the location of the communicatively coupled device and the authenticated mobile device (Based on the information received by the authentication server 33 from the communication device 103a, the authentication server 33 determines whether service personnel (e.g., officer, technician, etc.) is valid, at the correct location, and at the correct time (e.g., when time and GPS information is provided by the computing device 103a). The authentication server 33 in turn compares the information to information stored in a service personnel database in at least one storage device associated with the authentication server 33, [0037]),
wherein when the location match is present, the processing unit transmits to the communicatively coupled device, a confirmation of the identity of the first user and access to a host application including the first user information (The result is sent as a response to the computing device 103a making the inquiry (e.g., the client). In one example, a visual image of the service personnel may be displayed on the computing device or a green light, indicating that the identification information is confirmed (e.g., there are no security concerns)….. , the computing device 103a submits an identification verification request directly to the third party server. In another example, the third party server sends to the computing device 103a a message that includes a link to a web-site that includes picture information of the service personnel [0038]-[0039]).
However, Cazanas does not explicitly discloses, retrieving, by the processing unit, a location of an authenticated mobile device of the first user and secondary verification information of the first user, wherein the authenticated mobile device and the passive communication device are separate devices from one another.
In the same field of endeavor, Gosalia discloses, retrieving, by the processing unit, a location of an authenticated mobile device of the first user and secondary verification information of the first user, wherein the authenticated mobile device and the passive communication device are separate devices from one another (A token may be issued to the device of the user for their respective personal account, where the token may include data (which may be encrypted) allowing the service provider to identify the user and their account and authenticate the user [0012]; emergency data application 150 may also determine current user data at a time that first communication device 110 is requesting a notification be sent to a contact of the second user, for example, a location of second communication device 140 [0044]-[0048]; The first image may comprise a first location of the first computing device, and prior to generating the notification, a second location of the second user may be determined using a third computing device of the second user. It may then further be determined that the first location and the second location are within a maximum allowable difference for separation of the first computing device and the third computing device when the first computing device captures the first image prior to generating the notification [0083]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify Cazanas by specifically providing retrieving, by the processing unit, a location of an authenticated mobile device of the first user and secondary verification information of the first user, wherein the authenticated mobile device and the passive communication device are separate devices from one another, as taught by Gosalia for the purpose of providing technique that are utilized for machine-readable code displays for retrieval of associated contact data by other devices [0010].
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Cazanas and Gosalia discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), in addition Gosalia discloses,
wherein the secondary verification information comprises one or more of voice verification, biometric verification, facial recognition, or accelerometer verification (service provider application 152 may interact with emergency data application 150 to determine a user location, biometrics, or additional images/videos and provide the data to service provider server 160).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Cazanas and Gosalia discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), further Cazanas discloses,
wherein the transmitted access to the host application comprises the processing unit transmitting a webpage or a link to a webpage to the communicatively coupled device the computing device 103a submits an identification verification request directly to the third party server. In another example, the third party server sends to the computing device 103a a message that includes a link to a web-site that includes picture information of the service personnel [0038]-[0039]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Cazanas and Gosalia discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), further Cazanas discloses,
wherein the transmitted access to the host application comprises the processing unit transmitting a text message the communicatively coupled device (the notification is sent to the computing device 103a (and/or to the security badge 105a) via Internet Protocol Multimedia Subsystem (IMS), Short Message Service (SMS), and/or Multimedia Messaging Service (MMS) [0040] and [0050]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Cazanas and Gosalia discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), in addition Gosalia discloses,
wherein the host application is adapted to receive input from the second user via the communicatively coupled device (Service provider application 120 may be implemented with a user interface enabling the user to capture media data, such as a viewfinder and one or more processes of camera 130 to capture media data, or may provide an interface to view captured media data and select media data for uploading to service provider server 160 [0032]-[0033]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Cazanas and Gosalia discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 5), in addition Gosalia discloses,
wherein the input into the host application comprises a request for recording an encounter between the first user and the second user in real-time (service provider application 152 may interact with emergency data application 150 to determine a user location, biometrics, or additional images/videos and provide the data to service provider server 160. Service provider application 152 may include a dedicated application of service provider server 160, which may be configured to capture/upload data automatically through one or more requests. This data may be automatically shared with service provider server 160 and/or the device of the contact for the second user associated with second communication device 140 [0044]-[0046]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Cazanas and Gosalia discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), further Cazanas discloses,
wherein the processing unit is communicatively coupled to a server, and wherein the server is adapted to host the host application accessed by the second user via the communicatively coupled device (the authentication server 33 may refer to a third party server to request authentication information therefrom. For example, service personnel information for police officers may be in a separate third party server administered by the police. When an authentication request is received by the authentication server 33 from a computing device (e.g., 103a), the request may be redirected to the third party server [0039]; [0062]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Cazanas and Gosalia discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 7), in addition Gosalia discloses,
wherein the host application is adapted to transmit data between the communicatively coupled device and one or more of: another host application, a distributed ledger, or a backend server script using a database (service provider server 160 includes one or more processing applications which may be configured to interact with first communication device 110, second communication device 140, a contact's communication device, and/or another device/server to facilitate communication with the unknown user's contacts [0053]-[0054] and [0062]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Cazanas and Gosalia discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 7), in addition Gosalia discloses,
wherein the server is adapted to store a record of the transmitted access by the processing unit (Database 166 may also store machine-readable signs with associated contact data. Moreover, media data capturing a machine-readable sign to request assistance for an unknown user may be stored to database 166 with metadata and/or additional data [0058]; [0062]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Cazanas and Gosalia discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 7), further Cazanas discloses,
wherein the server is configured as a distributed ledger (Each authentication server 33/31 includes a service personnel database that has stored therein identity information associated with each security badge. For example, the authentication server 33 may include the picture information, ID number, name of the security badge holder, shift hours, and regions where the badge holder is allowed to service [0027]; [0045]-[0048]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Cazanas and Gosalia discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 7), in addition Gosalia discloses,
wherein the server is adapted to store account information of the first user (Database 166 may also store machine-readable signs with associated contact data. Moreover, media data capturing a machine-readable sign to request assistance for an unknown user may be stored to database 166 with metadata and/or additional data [0062]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Cazanas and Gosalia discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 7), in addition Gosalia discloses,
wherein the secondary verification information of the first user is from at least one of the communicatively coupled device, the authenticated mobile device, or another device communicatively coupled to the processing unit (service provider application 152 may interact with emergency data application 150 to determine a user location, biometrics, or additional images/videos and provide the data to service provider server 160. Service provider application 152 may include a dedicated application of service provider server 160, which may be configured to capture/upload data automatically through one or more requests [0044]-[0048]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Cazanas and Gosalia discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), further Cazanas discloses,
providing, by the processing unit, instructions to the first user to take action for obtaining secondary verification information (The result is sent as a response to the computing device 103a making the inquiry (e.g., the client). In one example, a visual image of the service personnel may be displayed on the computing device or a green light, indicating that the identification information is confirmed (e.g., there are no security concerns). In one embodiment, the computing device receives identification information (e.g., how many fingers the security personnel is to display) while the security badge 105a (which may be a handheld computing device) receives instructions from the authentication server 33 to display the identification information (e.g., the number of fingers to display to the client), [0037]-[0039]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Cazanas and Gosalia discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), further Cazanas discloses,
wherein the host application is a web application or a native application.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cazanas, in view of Gosalia and further in view of Lymberopoulos et al. (US 20150213244, hereinafter “Lymber”).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Cazanas and Gosalia discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), however the combination of Cazanas and Gosalia does not disclose, wherein the secondary verification information comprises accelerometer verification information based on the first user engaging in movements while holding the authenticated mobile device, or another device communicatively coupled to the processing unit.
In the same field of endeavor, Lymber discloses, wherein the secondary verification information comprises accelerometer verification information (the authentication component 516 can leverage the embedded accelerometer and gyro sensors to record the device's displacement and rotation during the gesture. Note that every time a finger taps the touch screen, the device is slightly displaced depending on how the user taps and holds the device at the time of the gesture [0037]) based on the first user engaging in movements while holding the authenticated mobile device, or another device communicatively coupled to the processing unit (At run time (e.g., real-time authentication 1804), every time a user performs the authentication gesture, the system can record a new sensor fingerprint 1818. The system can compute the similarity 1820 of this authentication gesture sensor fingerprint to the true user (e.g. the training user) as the average similarity between the authentication gesture sensor fingerprint and every single sensor fingerprint recorded in the training session [0053]-[0054]; [0086]-[0089]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Cazanas and Gosalia by specifically providing wherein the secondary verification information comprises accelerometer verification information based on the first user engaging in movements while holding the authenticated mobile device, or another device communicatively coupled to the processing unit, as taught by Lymber for the purpose of unlocking the computing device in an instance where the values of the multiple biometric features satisfy a similarity threshold relative to the previous values [0005].
Prior Art of the Record:
The prior art made of record not relied upon and considered pertinent to
Applicant’s disclosure:
US 20190028851 (hereinafter “Hansen”): Hansen describes using time and location tracking for confirming the identity of a user (Title and Abstract). However, using a passive communication device and authenticated mobile device to confirm the identity of a first user, where the confirmation information is sent to a communicatively coupled device of a second user is not explicitly disclosed.
US 20170324750 (hereinafter “Khan”): Khan describes confirming the identity of an individual in their electronic documents using an electronic device (Title and Abstract). However, using a passive communication device and authenticated mobile device to confirm the identity of a first user, where the confirmation information is sent to a communicatively coupled device of a second user is not explicitly disclosed.
US 20090284347 (hereinafter “Zimmerman”): Zimmerman describes a identity verification badge for confirming a user's identity with an electronic device ([0014]). However, using a passive communication device and authenticated mobile device to confirm the identity of a first user, where the confirmation information is sent to a communicatively coupled device of a second user is not explicitly disclosed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GOLAM SOROWAR whose telephone number is (571)270-3761. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:30AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Appiah can be reached at (571) 272-7904. 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.
/GOLAM SOROWAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2641
Prosecution Insights