DETAILED ACTION
The following FINAL Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Response filed on 07/29/2026.
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 . 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-34 were previously pending and subject to a non-final Office Action mailed 04/07/2026. Claims 1, 3, 6-13, 16-22, 25-28, 30, and 32-34 were amended. Claims 2, 4-5, 14-15, 23-24, 29, and 31 were cancelled. Claims 1, 3, 6-13, 16-22, 25-28, 30, and 32-34 are currently pending and are subject to the final Office Action below.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
Examiner maintains the objection of Claim 10 (as being dependent upon a rejected base claim).
35 USC § 112
Applicant has amended Claims 3, 6, and 16 by removing “for example”. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of Claims 3, 6, and 16 have been rendered moot and thus, have been withdrawn.
35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 16-24 of Applicant’s Remarks, filed 07/29/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of Claims 1-9 and 11-34 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s section A arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the non-final rejection, the claims are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity specifically commercial interactions between users/systems which manage access to compartments for delivery services through authentication and user/systems which request access to the compartments.
Limitations such as “obtaining a first piece”, “manage compartment allocation”, “authenticating”, “obtaining a fifth piece” are part of the abstract idea (authentication to grant/deny access to the compartments).
Regarding Applicant’s section B arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding Example 41, the combination of additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a process that secures private network communications so that a ciphertext word signal can be transmitted between computers of people who do not know each other or who have not shared a private key between them in advance of the message being transmitted, where the security of the cipher relies on the difficulty of factoring large integers by computers. Specifically improving upon prior methods as there is no known efficient algorithm to recover the plaintext given the ciphertext and public information.
Regarding Example 42, the additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user.
Compared to the Examples, Examiner disagrees that Applicant’s additional elements recite an improvement over the prior methods. The defined multi-device protocol that transports the access credential is the abstract idea and the additional element of the encryption features do not provide an improvement and amount to field of use (limiting the abstract idea to activities which are executed in an encrypted environment).
Regarding Applicant’s section C arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Examiner notes that the Example claims recite additional features such as reading an image that was generated in response to receipt of the random code where the image includes encrypted code data which is used to verify the customer’s identity.
In contrast, Applicant’s claims are similar to the ineligible features described in the Example, obtaining information to verify identity by “matching information” by selecting information by content or source. For example, in Applicant’s Claim 1 authenticating is achieved by selecting the server’s authentication information to verify. Providing second piece of information (“access”) in response to an opening request from a user who wishes to gain access to the compartment (fifth piece of information) and a positive verification result is part of the abstract idea and is a “compare-and-decide” process.
Regarding Applicant’s section D arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Examiner notes that there was no well-understood, routine, and conventional analysis performed at Prong 2. Examiner indicated the feature of wherein the key is stored in the compartment system amounted to, at Step 2B amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of data storage.
As noted, the encryption features amount to field of use (limiting the abstract idea to activities which are executed in an encrypted environment). As Applicant cited, specification paragraph 59 details that the feature merely specifies the commercial interactions between systems in an encrypted environment (the way data is being transmitted between the systems) – that is, the encrypted data is merely transmitted back/forth between systems/devices, and the key is stored (not transmitted).
Regarding Applicant’s section E arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner excluded Claim 10 from the 101 rejection because the specific twice-asymmetric key management structure was determined to be eligible. However, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., twice-asymmetric key management structure) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
As Applicant noted, para. 59 of the specification describes the end-to-end encryption as “symmetric encryption in which the backend system and the compartment system encrypt and decrypt messages with the key”.
Regarding Applicant’s section F arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated previously the encryption features amount to field of use. Further, the improvements noted are improvements in the way systems manage access to the compartments which may amount to improvement in the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.”
Additionally, the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., challenge or request message and twice-asymmetric key management structure) are not recited in the rejected claim(s).
Regarding the feature of allocating responsibility, paragraph 6 describes in the event of unauthorized access to a compartment, it is relevant to determine which system the access data could be spied on, but the invention and specification do not detail how that feature is achieved. The specification merely describes that such a function would be helpful.
Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
Examiner recommends Applicant further integrate encryption features in order to possibly overcome the eligibility rejection.
35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 24-30 of Applicant’s Remarks, filed 07/29/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been withdrawn. See “Closest Prior Art” section below.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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, 3, 6-9, 11-13, 16-22, 25-28, 30, and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1, 3, 6-9, and 11-12 are directed to a backend system, Claims 13 and 16-21 are directed to a server, Claims 22 and 25-27 are directed to a mobile device, and Claims 28, 30, and 32-34 are directed to a compartment system (i.e., a machine). Therefore, the claims all fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1
Independent claim 1 recites “obtaining a first piece of information … wherein the first piece of information is associated with [the server] and comprises a piece of authentication information … and wherein … manage a compartment allocation of one or more compartments …; authenticating … based on at least the first piece of information; obtaining a fifth piece of information … , wherein the fifth piece of information is an opening request which contains an identifier … and a compartment number of at least one of the one or more compartments for which a user … is intended to gain access; generating a second piece of information, … can gain access to the at least one of the one or more compartments … using the second piece of information; and outputting the second piece of information … , wherein a positive result of the authentication … is a necessary condition for outputting the second piece of information and wherein obtaining the fifth piece of information is a further necessary condition for outputting the second piece of information”.
Independent claim 13 recites “managing a compartment allocation of one or more compartments…; obtaining a third piece of information … ; generating a first piece of information, wherein the first piece of information is associated with [the server] and comprises a piece authentication information of the server; outputting the first piece of information … in order to allow [the backend system] to authenticate … based on at least the first piece of information, wherein a positive result of the authentication is a necessary condition for outputting a second piece of information …, wherein … can gain access to at least one of the one or more compartments … using the second piece of information, and wherein obtaining the third piece of information is a necessary condition for outputting the first piece of information; generating a fifth piece of information, and outputting the fifth piece of information …, wherein obtaining the fifth piece of information … is a further necessary condition for outputting the second piece of information … , wherein the fifth piece of information is an opening request which contains an identifier … and a compartment number of the at least one of the one or more compartments for which a user … is intended to gain access; obtaining the second piece of information …, outputting the second piece of information …”.
Independent claim 22 recites “obtaining a third piece of information … or generating a third piece of information; and outputting the third piece of information …, wherein … manage a compartment allocation of one or more compartments …, wherein obtaining the third piece of information … is a necessary condition for outputting a first piece of information … wherein the first piece of information is associated with [the server] and comprises a piece of authentication information…, wherein a positive result of the authentication … based at least on the first piece of information is a necessary condition for outputting a second piece of information …, wherein … can gain access to at least one of the one or more compartments … using the second piece of information; obtaining the second piece of information…, and outputting the second piece of information …”.
Independent claim 28 recites “obtaining a first piece of information … , wherein the first piece of information is associated with [the server] and comprises a piece of authentication information …, and wherein … to manage a compartment allocation of one or more compartments…; - authenticating … based on at least the first piece of information; -obtaining a fifth piece of information …, wherein the fifth piece of information is an opening request which contains an identifier … and a compartment number of at least one of the one or more compartments for which a user … is intended to gain access; - generating a second piece of information, wherein … can gain access to the at least one of the one or more compartments … using the second piece of information; and - outputting the second piece of information, wherein a positive result of the authentication … is a necessary condition for outputting the second piece of information, and wherein obtaining the fifth piece of information is a further necessary condition for outputting the second piece of information;
-managing the compartment allocation of the one or more compartments…; - obtaining a third piece of information … ; - generating the first piece of information, wherein the first piece of information is associated with [the server] and comprises the piece of authentication information …; and - outputting the first piece of information … in order to allow [the backend system] to authenticate … based on at least the first piece of information, wherein a positive result of the authentication is a necessary condition for outputting the second piece of information …, wherein … can gain access to at least one of the one or more compartments … using the second piece of information, and wherein obtaining the third piece of information is a necessary condition for outputting the first piece of information;
-generating the fifth piece of information, and outputting the fifth piece of information … , wherein obtaining the fifth piece of information … is a further necessary condition for outputting the second piece of information … , wherein the fifth piece of information is the opening request which contains the identifier… and the compartment number of the at least one of the one or more compartments for which the user … is intended to gain access;- obtaining the second piece of information from the … ; and- outputting the second piece of information …;
- obtaining the third piece of information … or generating the third piece of information; - outputting the third piece of information … , wherein obtaining the third piece of information … is a necessary condition for outputting the first piece of information …, wherein a positive result of the authentication … based at least on the first piece of information is a necessary condition for outputting the second piece of information …, wherein … can gain access to the at least one of the one or more compartments … using the second piece of information, …obtaining the second piece of information…; and determining whether access to the at least one of the one or more compartments … can be granted based on the second piece of information”.
Organizing Human Activity
The limitations above are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers “certain methods of organizing human activity” (commercial or legal interactions, specifically sales activities or behaviors and business relations). Specifically, commercial interactions between users/systems which manage access to compartments for delivery services through authentication and users/systems which request access to the compartments in light of paragraph 2 of Applicant’s specification “Exemplary embodiments of the invention relate to methods, apparatuses, systems and computer programs for authenticating a user of a compartment system, wherein the compartment system is in particular a compartment system for sending and/or receiving shipments and/or for depositing and/or removing objects, and wherein the compartment system is used and/or managed in particular by multiple companies on a pro-rata basis”.
See also para. 5-6 of Applicant’s specification “flexible use of a compartment system is desirable, so that not only the operator, who manages a plurality of compartment systems, but also partner companies with different apparatuses or systems, e.g. different delivery services, online dealers or local service providers (e.g. tradesmen), can allow access to compartments of a compartment system. For example, compartments can be rented over the long term to the partner company, which then decides independently on the use of the compartments … it is particularly relevant to prevent unauthorized access to compartments of the compartment system. In the event that unauthorized access to a compartment of the compartment system has nevertheless occurred, it is also relevant to determine at which point in the system, i.e. in whose area of responsibility, for example, there was a security leak. If, for example, compromised access data were used during unauthorized access, it is relevant to determine in which system or part of a system the access data could be spied on. This is especially true if different apparatuses or systems can generate access data for compartments of a compartment system”.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claims recite the following additional elements – a backend system comprising at least one processor and at least one memory; a server comprising at least one (second) processor and at least one (second) memory; a mobile device comprising at least one (third) processor and at least one (third) memory, and a compartment system comprising at least one processor and at least one memory.
The additional elements (of processors and memories) are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f). These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further, the additional elements (backend system, server, mobile device, and compartment system) are merely confining the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment by specifying that the abstract idea of commercial interactions relates to activities that are executed in a computer environment because this requirement merely limits the claims to execution by the backend system, server, mobile device, and a compartment system. Thus, the additional elements fail to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Additionally, limitations such as “wherein the server is configured to manage a compartment allocation of one or more compartments of the compartment system”, “wherein the mobile device which is different from the server can gain access to at least one of the one or more compartments of the compartment system”, and “an identifier of the compartment system” are specifying that the abstract idea of commercial interactions are drawn to a specific field of use (management/access to a compartment of the compartment system). For example, as noted in paragraph 2 of Applicant’s specification “authenticating a user of a compartment system, wherein the compartment system is in particular a compartment system for sending and/or receiving shipments and/or for depositing and/or removing objects”.
The independent claims also recite obtaining a key for encrypted communication with a compartment system; [wherein the mobile device which is different from the server can gain access to the at least one of the one or more compartments of the compartment system] using the second piece of information, wherein the second piece of information is encrypted with the key, wherein the key is not known to the server and to the mobile device. Such limitations are merely indicating a field of use (i.e., encryption) in which to apply a judicial exception – specifically, limiting the abstract idea to data which is encrypted with a key and further, limiting the abstract idea to activities which are executed in an encrypted environment (encrypted communication between devices).
The limitation of “Wherein the key is stored in the compartment system” is insignificant extra-solution activity of data storage. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Thus, the claims as a whole, looking at additional elements individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the additional elements are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components, extra-solution activity, and/or field of use which does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the independent claims are directed towards an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements (such as processors and memories) used to perform the abstract idea limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components which cannot provide an inventive concept.
The processors and memories are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Again, the additional elements (backend system, server, mobile device, and compartment system) are merely confining the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment by specifying that the abstract idea of commercial interactions relates to activities that are executed in a computer environment because this requirement merely limits the claims to execution by the backend system, server, mobile device, and a compartment system. Thus, the additional elements fail to add an inventive concept to the claims.
The limitations such as “wherein the server is configured to manage a compartment allocation of one or more compartments of the compartment system”, “wherein the mobile device which is different from the server can gain access to at least one of the one or more compartments of the compartment system”, and “an identifier of the compartment system” are specifying that the abstract idea of commercial interactions are drawn to a specific field of use (management/access to a compartment of the compartment system).
The independent claims also recite obtaining a key for encrypted communication with a compartment system; [wherein the mobile device which is different from the server can gain access to the at least one of the one or more compartments of the compartment system] using the second piece of information, wherein the second piece of information is encrypted with the key, wherein the key is not known to the server and to the mobile device. Such limitations are merely indicating a field of use (i.e., encryption) in which to apply a judicial exception – specifically, limiting the abstract idea to data which is encrypted with a key and further, limiting the abstract idea to activities which are executed in an encrypted environment (encrypted communication between devices). Thus, the additional elements fail to add an inventive concept to the claims.
“Wherein the key is stored in the compartment system” is insignificant extra-solution activity of data storage which is a computer function that the courts have identified as well-understood, routine, and conventional – storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
None of the steps/functions of Claim 1, Claim 13, Claim 22, and Claim 28 when evaluated individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements are merely used to perform the limitations directed to the abstract idea and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or field of use, thus, the analysis does not change when considered as an ordered combination. Accordingly, the additional elements do not meaningfully limit the claim and Claims 1, 13, 22, and 28 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 3, 6-9, 11-12, 16-21, 25-27, 30, and 32-34 merely add additional limitations that narrow down the abstract idea identified above.
Dependent Claim 3 and Claim 21 merely specify pieces of information obtained/generated/transmitted (between the backend system and server) which is further organizing human activity.
Dependent Claims 6 and 7 specify limitations which are further organizing human activity –“obtaining”, “generating”, “outputting”, “obtaining”. Limitations reciting encryption concepts (“encrypted with a key”, “decrypted with the key”, “contains at least the key”, etc.) are merely indicating a field of use (i.e., encryption) in which to apply a judicial exception – specifically, limiting the abstract idea to data which is encrypted/decrypted with a key and further, data which contains the key.
Dependent Claims 8-9 specify limitations which are further organizing human activity and/or field of use. Limitations reciting encryption concepts (i.e., “decrypting the encrypted key”) are merely indicating a field of use (i.e., encryption) in which to apply a judicial exception – specifically, limiting the abstract idea to data which is encrypted/decrypted.
Dependent Claims 11-12 specify limitations which are further organizing human activity and/or field of use – “obtaining”, “wherein”, “wherein the compartment system”, “wherein”, “wherein”. Dependent Claims 19-20 similarly recite organizing human activity limitations such as “generating”, “wherein”, “outputting”, “wherein the compartment system”, “wherein”, “wherein the…”.
Limitations reciting encryption concepts are merely indicating a field of use (i.e., encryption) in which to apply a judicial exception – specifically, limiting the abstract idea to data which is encrypted/decrypted (with a key).
Dependent Claims 16, 17, and 18 specify limitations which are further organizing human activity – “obtaining”, “outputting”, “obtaining”, “wherein”, etc. Limitations reciting encryption concepts (“encrypted with the key”, “decrypted by the first apparatus”, etc.) are merely indicating a field of use (i.e., encryption) in which to apply a judicial exception – specifically, limiting the abstract idea to data which is encrypted with a key, data which is decrypted, and further, data which contains the key.
Dependent Claims 25, 26, and 27 specify limitations which are further organizing human activity – “obtaining”, “outputting”, “wherein”, etc. Limitations reciting encryption concepts (“encrypted with the key”, “decrypted seventh piece”, etc.) are merely indicating a field of use (i.e., encryption) in which to apply a judicial exception – specifically, limiting the abstract idea to data which is encrypted with a key, data which is decrypted, and further, data which contains the key.
Dependent Claim 30 merely specifies the third piece of information transmitted (between the compartment system and the mobile device) which is further organizing human activity.
Dependent Claims 32, 33, and 34 specify limitations which are further organizing human activity – “generating”, “outputting”, “wherein”, etc. Limitations reciting encryption concepts (“encrypted with the key”, “decrypted seventh piece”, etc.) are merely indicating a field of use (i.e., encryption) in which to apply a judicial exception – specifically, limiting the abstract idea to data which is encrypted with a key, data which is decrypted, and further, data which contains the key.
Nothing in dependent claims 3, 6-9, 11-12, 16-21, 25-27, 30, and 32-34 adds additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, Claims 1, 3, 6-9, 11-13, 16-22, 25-28, 30, and 32-34 are ineligible.
Closest Prior Art
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of closest prior art:
Examiner noting that most of the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 with the exception of Claim 10 which is objected to.
Available prior art, alone or in combination, fail to disclose every element of the independent claims. Examiner noting the feature of the backend system authenticating the server based on the first piece of information (authentication information of the server) and outputting the second piece of information (used by mobile device to gain access to compartment) to the server, wherein a positive result of the authentication of the server is a necessary condition for outputting the second piece of information as the specific feature not taught by prior art.
The following are the closest prior art:
Low et al. (US2022/0335760) teaches obtaining first piece of information from a fulfillment system by the authentication relay system which generates second piece of information which is used by a UE to unlock a locker. However, the first piece of information is not piece of authentication information of the server used to authenticate the server to the backend system.
Kashi et al. (US2021/0074100) teaches authenticating a first device by a third device. However, Kashi does not teach outputting second information based on positive authentication and obtaining the fifth piece of information.
Helferich et al. (US2022/0343708) teaches wherein the key is not known (para. 30 the key may be generated by the apparatus that performs the method and the key is then not known and/or accessible to any other apparatus; para. 37 and para. 47 encrypting access information (“second piece of information”) with the key; para. 117 compartment installation encrypts using the key; figure 7 and para. 164-166 payload data memory of compartment installation stores keys)
Carstens et al. (US2016/0269168) teaches a third apparatus transmitting access authorization parameters and a key to a second apparatus who transmits the information along with temporal information to a first apparatus. Carstens also teaches the first apparatus checking the authenticity of the second apparatus. However, Carstens does not teach the third apparatus that transmits the access information (backend system) authenticating the second apparatus (server).
Felsher et al. (US Patent No. 9,419,951) teaches asymmetric key exchange for encryption of the communication between a first, second, and third party.
Tang (US2020/0028672) teaches a key exchange process between a smart door lock and a mobile terminal where identity authentication is performed on encrypted data.
Shibutani et al. (US2017/0084100) teaches a locker, mobile device, wearable device, and authentication server sending data to each other in order to perform authentication and unlocking a locker based on the authentication result.
Simms et al. (US2021/0304539) teaches a backend server communicating with a retailer server, authenticating a request, and sending an unlock signal to a delivery box in response to the request being authenticated.
Pientka et al. (US2018/0315015) teaches a providing apparatus transmitting delivery information to a first, second, and third apparatus wherein the information may be encrypted.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lisa Ma whose telephone number is (571)272-2495. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 7 AM - 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571)272-5587. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/L.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628
