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 .
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b) (2) (C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2 and 9-10 and 11-12, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2009/0156241 A1 to Staffaroni et al. (hereinafter “Staffaroni”) and in view of United States Patent Application Pub, No.: US 2012/0265580A1 to Kobayashi et al. filed in 2009 (hereinafter “Kobayashi”) and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2018/0060838 A1 to Agrawal et al. that was filed in 206 (hereinafter “Agrawal”).
In regard to claim 1, and 11, and 20, Staffaroni discloses “1. A computer system comprising:
one or more processors;
memory resources storing a set of instructions that, when executed by the one or
more processors, cause the computer system to perform operations comprising: (see block 116-118)
receiving, over one or more networks, a pre-request for transport, the
pre-request specifying information about a first method of transit for the user
to travel to a specified location, the pre-request identifying the specified
location as a pickup location; (see paragraphs 21-28 and paragraph 5; see block 325 where a pick up location is identified and transmitted and then at paragraph 6-9 the destination address is provided for the taxi service to be dispatched )”.
PNG
media_image1.png
429
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
827
1012
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Staffaroni is silent but Kobayashi teaches “…communicating, over one or more networks, with a third-party system to receive transit information for the user traveling by the first method of transit to the specified location; and; (see paragraph 46-53 where the event letting out will provide a surge in demand and the vehicles will be dispatched to arrive at that location at the time of the surge; see FIG. 21, where the population data is received in block D05 and then this data is provided for a prediction of taxis and a prediction of demand in blocks s06, d7 and s07; see paragraph 40-44 where based on the population then the system can infer a correlation of an event and taxi demand via regression; see paragraph 60 where the data acquisition can be from a cell phone);
based on the transit information, generating a notification for a
computing device of the user regarding the pre-request for transport, the (see paragraph 46-53 and see FIG. 1, and paragraphs 43-44 where the vehicle are located at block a4, a3, and a2 and then based on the event from the server the taxi computing devices are predicted to be in demand in sector a1 ; (see FIG. 1, and paragraphs 43-44 where the vehicle are located at block a4, a3, and a2 and then based on the event from the server the taxi computing devices are predicted to be in demand in sector a1 and they all arrive in time for the let out of the event and the demand surge); (see FIG. 1, and paragraphs 43-44 where the vehicle are located at block a4, a3, and a2 and then based on the event from the server the taxi computing devices are predicted to be in demand in sector a1 and they all arrive in time for the let out of the event and the demand surge) (FIG. 1, and paragraphs 43-48 where the vehicle are located at block a4, a3, and a2 and then based on the event from the server the taxi computing devices are predicted to be in demand in sector a1 and they all arrive in time for the let out of the event and the demand surge, and where the vehicles a4, a3 and a2 are summoned to that area a1 to pick up the demand surge passengers and see paragraph 130-134 where the weather can be bad which further create more vehicles to be dispatched to the area just in time to the event letting out) (see FIG. 1, and paragraphs 43-48 where the vehicle are located at block a4, a3, and a2 and then based on the event from the server the taxi computing devices are predicted to be in demand in sector a1 and they all arrive in time for the let out of the event and the demand surge, and where the vehicles a4, a3 and a2 are summoned to that area a1 to pick up the demand surge passengers and the passengers can submit a message to summon the vehicles)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Kobayashi with the disclosure of Staffaroni to provide a server device to organize the number of ride share taxis. For example, the server may determine that there is a massive event in the town and then through regression analysis can infer that the demand will increase around that area correlating to the event. Then the server will systematically route taxis to that area from different areas to meet the predicted demand. This ensures that there are more taxis to service the people leaving the event for that area and the taxis can meet the forecasted demand and avoid areas with no demand. See abstract and paragraphs 43-51 of Kobayashi.
Agrawal teaches notification enabling the user to submit, cancel or prevent a transport request from being made in accordance with the pre-request for transport (see paragraph 42 where the first device may use a ride share application; see paragraph 37 where an invitation and a sale and a completion of the transaction may be detected via first device and the merchant).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Agrawal with the disclosure of Staffaroni to provide a server device to detect transactions then provide an indication of the completion of a ride share transaction. Then a data communication that is opened to service the transaction can be closed when the transaction is completed. This data pipe closure via routing provides increased safety and data security in that the data cannot be communicated further. See abstract and paragraphs 37-42 of Agrawal.
In regard to claim 2, and 12, Kobayashi teaches “...2. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the pre-request is received from a third-party system.”. (see FIG. 1, and paragraphs 43-48 where the vehicle or bus or train are located at block a4, a3, and a2 and then based on the event from the server the taxi computing devices are predicted to be in demand in sector a1 and they all arrive in time for the let out of the event and the demand surge, and where the vehicles a4, a3 and a2 are summoned to that area a1 to pick up the demand surge passengers and where the mode is a vehicle that is sent to the super bowl or massive concert event that is letting out soon)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Kobayashi with the disclosure of Staffaroni to provide a server device to organize the number of ride share taxis. For example, the server may determine that there is a massive event in the town and then through regression analysis can infer that the demand will increase around that area correlating to the event. Then the server will systematically route taxis to that area from different areas to meet the predicted demand. This ensures that there are more taxis to service the people leaving the event for that area and the taxis can meet the forecasted demand and avoid areas with no demand. See abstract and paragraphs 43-51 of Kobayashi.
Claims 3 and 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2009/0156241 A1 to Staffaroni et al. (hereinafter “Staffaroni”) and in view of United States Patent Application Pub, No.: US 2012/0265580A1 to Kobayashi et al. that ws filed in 2009 (hereinafter “Kobayashi”) and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2018/0060838 A1 to Agrawal et al. that was filed in 206 (hereinafter “Agrawal”) and in further in view of U.S. Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2015/0161698 A1 to Jones et al.
In regard to claim 3, 13, Jones teaches “...3. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
communicating with the third-party system using a route or airplane
identifier that is transporting the user to the specified location. (see paragraph 129 where a first ETA is determined and then a second updated ETA is computed that is adjusted; see paragraph 120-129 where the second ETA can be a permissible deviation or a permissible deviation and then the truck will pick up the new load; see FIG. 3 and paragraphs 129 to 132, where the vehicle has a load and then includes a first estimate time of arrival in block 331 and then finds new available loads for different customers in block 351 and then an updated time of arrival if the new customer is on the route and then uses a predictive analytics system in block 352 and then books a new load and a next leg is booked to provide the new user; see also FIG. 4 where the new location function 431 is made and then a tracking for a new load is made in block 440; see paragraphs 102 to 105, 129 to 133 where the user may have a certain leg and then other loads may be suggested simply based on a historical pattern and without providing a pick up location)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Jones with the disclosure of Staffaroni since Jones teaches that a driver’s path may be tracked from an origin to a destination. Additionally, if there is room in the vehicle and the driver wishes then an offer for new loads may be made based on the time of arrival and path of the vehicle. Then a central controller may add new loads to the vehicle to ensure the vehicle is full and earns more money and provides increased productivity and better fuel economy as a separate trip does not have to be made. Additionally, once accepted this may tracked. See paragraphs 102-105, the abstract and 129 to 135 of Jones.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2009/0156241 A1 to Staffaroni et al. (hereinafter “Staffaroni”) and in view of United States Patent Application Pub, No.: US 2012/0265580A1 to Kobayashi et al. that was filed in 2009 (hereinafter “Kobayashi”) and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2018/0060838 A1 to Agrawal et al. that was filed in 206 (hereinafter “Agrawal”) and in view of NPL, Fang, Zhihan, MAC: Measuring the Impacts of Anomalies on Travel Time of Multiple Transportation Systems, Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol. 3, 2, Article 42 (June 2019), 24 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3328913 (hereinafter “Fang”)
In regard to claim 4, 14, FANG teaches “...4. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
determining, based at least in part on the transit information, an estimated
time of arrival for the user to arrive at the pickup location; and
based on the estimated time of arrival, generating one or more
communications for the computing device of the user, to inform the user of the
pickup location when the user arrives at the specified location..” (see section 2.2-4.2 where the mapping of the delays can occur on a single modality such as subway only or so called multiple modalities where the user can take the subway, bus and car using different systems and different data sets based on the table 2 of a subway, bus, taxi or personal vehicle and significant delas can be expressed in terms of 1. Delays for bus, 2. Delays for subway, 3. Delays for taxi and 4. Delays for the personal vehicle and the user can take multiple modalities and experience different delays for the time of day, travel demand, demand trend and impact of a storm on all 4 modalities in a single trip)”.
PNG
media_image3.png
450
747
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of FANG with the disclosure of Staffaroni to provide a server device to track different delays of different modes of transportation. For example, a path with a vehicle and then a subway may have excessive delay but a bus route and then walking can be faster and the user can be provided with this pertinent information to change a mode of the transportation. See section 2.2 to 4.2.
Claims 5 and 6 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2009/0156241 A1 to Staffaroni et al. (hereinafter “Staffaroni”) and in view of United States Patent Application Pub, No.: US 2012/0265580A1 to Kobayashi et al. that ws filed in 2009 (hereinafter “Kobayashi”) and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2018/0060838 A1 to Agrawal et al. that was filed in 206 (hereinafter “Agrawal”) and in view of Jones.
In regard to claim 5 and 15, Jones teaches “...5. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
determining, based at least in part on the transit information, an estimated time of arrival for the user to arrive at the pickup location; and based on the estimated time of arrival, generating one or more
communications for the computing device of the user, the one or more communications updating the user as to when a transport request is to be generated for the pre-request.”. (see paragraph 129 where a first ETA is determined and then a second updated ETA is computed that is adjusted; see paragraph 120-129 where the second ETA can be a permissible deviation or a permissible deviation and then the truck will pick up the new load; see FIG. 3 and paragraphs 129 to 132, where the vehicle has a load and then includes a first estimate time of arrival in block 331 and then finds new available loads for different customers in block 351 and then an updated time of arrival if the new customer is on the route and then uses a predictive analytics system in block 352 and then books a new load and a next leg is booked to provide the new user; see also FIG. 4 where the new location function 431 is made and then a tracking for a new load is made in block 440; see paragraphs 102 to 105, 129 to 133 where the user may have a certain leg and then other loads may be suggested simply based on a historical pattern and without providing a pick up location)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Jones with the disclosure of Staffaroni since Jones teaches that a driver’s path may be tracked from an origin to a destination. Additionally, if there is room in the vehicle and the driver wishes then an offer for new loads may be made based on the time of arrival and path of the vehicle. Then a central controller may add new loads to the vehicle to ensure the vehicle is full and earns more money and provides increased productivity and better fuel economy as a separate trip does not have to be made. Additionally, once accepted this may tracked. See paragraphs 102-105, the abstract and 129 to 135 of Jones.
In regard to claim 6 and 16, Jones teaches “...6. The computer system of claim 5, wherein the operations further comprise:
predicting (i) an arrival time of the requester to arrive at the pickup location,
and (ii) an amount of time for a service provider to arrive at the pickup location.. (see paragraph 129 where a first ETA is determined and then a second updated ETA is computed that is adjusted; see paragraph 120-129 where the second ETA can be a permissible deviation or a permissible deviation and then the truck will pick up the new load; see FIG. 3 and paragraphs 129 to 132, where the vehicle has a load and then includes a first estimate time of arrival in block 331 and then finds new available loads for different customers in block 351 and then an updated time of arrival if the new customer is on the route and then uses a predictive analytics system in block 352 and then books a new load and a next leg is booked to provide the new user; see also FIG. 4 where the new location function 431 is made and then a tracking for a new load is made in block 440; see paragraphs 102 to 105, 129 to 133 where the user may have a certain leg and then other loads may be suggested simply based on a historical pattern and without providing a pick up location)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Jones with the disclosure of Staffaroni since Jones teaches that a driver’s path may be tracked from an origin to a destination. Additionally, if there is room in the vehicle and the driver wishes then an offer for new loads may be made based on the time of arrival and path of the vehicle. Then a central controller may add new loads to the vehicle to ensure the vehicle is full and earns more money and provides increased productivity and better fuel economy as a separate trip does not have to be made. Additionally, once accepted this may tracked. See paragraphs 102-105, the abstract and 129 to 135 of Jones.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2009/0156241 A1 to Staffaroni et al. (hereinafter “Staffaroni”) and in view of United States Patent Application Pub, No.: US 2012/0265580A1 to Kobayashi et al. that was filed in 2009 (hereinafter “Kobayashi”) and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2018/0060838 A1 to Agrawal et al. that was filed in 206 (hereinafter “Agrawal”) and in view of Fang.
In regard to claim 7 and 17, Fang teaches “...7. The computer system of claim 6, wherein the operations further comprise:
predicting an optimal moment when the transport request is to be requested
based on the predicted arrival time and the amount of time.”. (see section 2.2-4.2 where the mapping of the delays can occur on a single modality such as subway only or so called multiple modalities where the user can take the subway, bus and car using different systems and different data sets based on the table 2 of a subway, bus, taxi or personal vehicle and significant delas can be expressed in terms of 1. Delays for bus, 2. Delays for subway, 3. Delays for taxi and 4. Delays for the personal vehicle and the user can take multiple modalities and experience different delays for the time of day, travel demand, demand trend and impact of a storm on all 4 modalities in a single trip)
See motivation statement above.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2009/0156241 A1 to Staffaroni et al. (hereinafter “Staffaroni”) and in view of United States Patent Application Pub, No.: US 2012/0265580A1 to Kobayashi et al. that ws filed in 2009 (hereinafter “Kobayashi”) and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2018/0060838 A1 to Agrawal et al. that was filed in 206 (hereinafter “Agrawal”) and in view of U.S. Patent No.: 8954094 B1 to Mishra (hereinafter “Mishra”).
In regard to claim 8 and claim 18, Mishra teaches 8. The computer system of claim 7, wherein the operations further comprise:
automatically making the transport request for the user at the optimal
moment”. (see FIG. 4 where the mobile device 110 can provide for a walking mode, a car mode, a walking mode, plane and then a car mode modality and these are all tracked in the mobile device 17) (see FIG. 5 where the user can move in the first path 560A as walking and the second path 5606 on a train} (see FIG. 5 where the user can move in the first path 500A as walking or car and the second path 5608 on a train from the location 510 to 520 and to 520) (see col. 8, line 50 to col. 9, line 55 where when the device determines that the user is on the bus a number of bus stops can be displayed likewise a movement in FIG 6 can be provided as an automobile mode to the walking modality; see col. 6 line 50 to col.. 7, line 1O where a user can find a parking using the different transportation modes from first the bus and then the walking directions)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of MISHRA with the disclosure of Staffaroni to provide a server device to output different modes based on the different ETA. A first ETA of a car may be excessive and instead the user can take a subway and walk to reduce the travel time. See abstract.
In regard to claim 9 and 19, Kobayashi teaches “…9. The computer system of claim 6, wherein the operations further comprise:
wherein predicting the arrival time of the requester includes communicating
with the computing device of the user to remotely monitor a location of the user as
the user approaches the pickup location”. (see FIG. 1, and paragraphs 43-48 where the vehicle or bus or train are located at block a4, a3, and a2 and then based on the event from the server the taxi computing devices are predicted to be in demand in sector a1 and they all arrive in time for the let out of the event and the demand surge, and where the vehicles a4, a3 and a2 are summoned to that area a1 to pick up the demand surge passengers and where the mode is a vehicle that is sent to the super bowl or massive concert event that is letting out soon)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Kobayashi with the disclosure of Staffaroni to provide a server device to organize the number of ride share taxis. For example, the server may determine that there is a massive event in the town and then through regression analysis can infer that the demand will increase around that area correlating to the event. Then the server will systematically route taxis to that area from different areas to meet the predicted demand. This ensures that there are more taxis to service the people leaving the event for that area and the taxis can meet the forecasted demand and avoid areas with no demand. See abstract and paragraphs 43-51 of Kobayashi.
Kobayashi teaches “..10. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the notification is generated
through a service application that operates on the computer device of the user, the
service application providing a user interface, including selectable features that
enable the user to specify input responsive to the notification”. (see FIG. 1, and paragraphs 43-48 where the vehicle or bus or train are located at block a4, a3, and a2 and then based on the event from the server the taxi computing devices are predicted to be in demand in sector a1 and they all arrive in time for the let out of the event and the demand surge, and where the vehicles a4, a3 and a2 are summoned to that area a1 to pick up the demand surge passengers and where the mode is a vehicle that is sent to the super bowl or massive concert event that is letting out soon)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Kobayashi with the disclosure of Staffaroni to provide a server device to organize the number of ride share taxis. For example, the server may determine that there is a massive event in the town and then through regression analysis can infer that the demand will increase around that area correlating to the event. Then the server will systematically route taxis to that area from different areas to meet the predicted demand. This ensures that there are more taxis to service the people leaving the event for that area and the taxis can meet the forecasted demand and avoid areas with no demand. See abstract and paragraphs 43-51 of Kobayashi.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under obviousness double patenting in view of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No.: 9911170 that recites “ obtaining a pre-request of a transportation ride share”.
The current claims recite “…receiving, over one or more networks, a pre-request for transport, the
pre-request specifying information about a first method of transit for the user
to travel to a specified location, the pre-request identifying the specified location as a pickup location;
communicating, over one or more networks, with a third-party system
to receive transit information for the user traveling by the first method of transit to the specified location; and
based on the transit information, generating a notification for a
computing device of the user regarding the pre-request for transport, the notification enabling the user to submit, cancel or prevent a transport request from being made in accordance with the pre-request for transport.
The only difference is in claim of the present claims it recites a pre-request that can be submitted or cancelled to prevent the request.
The claims are otherwise identical.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN PAUL CASS whose telephone number is (571)270-1934. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7 am to 7 pm; Saturday 10 am to 12 noon.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached on 571-270-0151. 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.
/JEAN PAUL CASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights