DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to Applicant’s submissions filed on 6/22/2026. Claims 1-19 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
In response to Applicant’s amendments dated 6/22/2026, Examiner withdraws the previous drawing objections; withdraws the previous specification objections; withdraws the previous claim objections; withdraws the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b); withdraws the previous prior art rejections; and maintains the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C.§ 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the sentence “[e]ach record xi = (xi.lat, xi.ing, xi.v), where xi.lat, xi.ing, xi.v denote the latitude, the longitude, and the velocity, respectively” is complete as it defines all the parameters in the equation (Applicant’s Remarks; pp. 12), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although all of the parameters of the equation are mathematically defined, the sentence is grammatically incomplete. See objection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the computational rules in claim 1 are not mental steps, they are algorithmic processes that require machine execution (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 14), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 includes the abstract ideas of identifying data points that are indicative of a parking action, e.g., the end of a route trace, identifying groups of the data points based on distances to geographic locations, determining the center point of each group, and selecting one or more of the center points as parking lots based on how many of the data points each group contains. Therefore, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 1 is directed to inferring parking lot locations from the density of parking actions, and there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper. Although claim 1 is directed to a computer-implemented method, paragraph 123 discloses using a general-purpose computer for implementing the identification server. A claim can recite a mental process even if it is performed on a generic computer, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(III)(C)(1). See rejection below.
In response to Applicant's argument that the human mind cannot execute the steps recited in amended independent claim 1 due to the scale, complexity, and continuous nature of the data (Applicant’s Remarks; pp. 14-15), it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., clustering large sets of spatially distributed data points, iteratively computing centroids, applying DBSCAN or K means clustering algorithms to large datasets) 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). See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that transforming raw geospatial probe data into actionable identification of parking lots requires specialized computational resources (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 14), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, paragraph 123 discloses implementing the transformation using a general-purpose computer. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that amended claim 1 uses threshold-based selection and fallback rules to improve the reliability and accuracy of parking lot identification analogously to Example 40 provided in the “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (Applicant’s Remarks; pp. 15-16), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Example 40, the network appliance initiates the collection of additional traffic data in response to the comparison of collected traffic data with the threshold, therefore, the abstract idea of comparing collected traffic data to a predefined threshold is integrated into the practical application of collecting additional traffic data. Applicant’s claim 1 includes the abstract idea of comparing the number of detected data points to a threshold to designate one or more centroids as the parking lots, however, the identified parking lots are not used in the claims, therefore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. It is further noted that although the data points are obtained from probe data generated by one or more GPS receivers, claim 1 does not include receiving the probe data or causing it to be generated. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that amended claim 1 reflects an improvement to the technical field of processing geospatial trajectory data used in navigation systems especially when probe data is sparse (Applicant’s Remarks; pp. 16-17), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. See MPEP § 2106.05(a)(II). As discussed above, the claims are directed to executing a process on a general-purpose computer, the process includes the abstract ideas of inferring parking lot locations from the density of parking actions, and the parking lot locations are not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claims do not include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic computer. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the additional elements of amended claim 1 amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are not routine or conventional in the field of geospatial data processing and navigation systems (Applicant’s Remarks; pp. 18-20), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The inventive concept must be furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, see MPEP § 2106.05(I). Therefore, the inventive concept cannot be furnished by the abstract ideas of identifying data points that are indicative of a parking action, e.g., the end of a route trace, identifying groups of the data points based on distances to geographic locations, determining the center point of each group, and selecting one or more of the center points as parking lots based on how many of the data points each group contains. The additional elements recited in claim 1, that are recited in addition to the judicial exception, are the computer that implements the method, and the global positioning system (GPS) receivers carried by one or more vehicles or one or more devices associated with users. As discussed above, the computer is a general-purpose computer. The vehicles and devices are also generically recited elements, and vehicles and devices that carry GPS receivers are well known in the art of navigation. Therefore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that amended claim 1 meets the requirements under BASCOM because it recites a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of computational steps that collectively amount to an inventive concept (Applicant’s Remarks; pp. 19-20), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, the inventive concept must be furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to the judicial exception. Also discussed above, the computational steps are the judicial exception, because there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper, therefore, the computational steps themselves cannot be relied upon to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See rejection below.
The remaining arguments are essentially the same as those addressed above and are unpersuasive for at least the same reasons. Therefore, Examiner is unpersuaded and maintains the corresponding rejections.
Drawings
The amended drawings were received on 6/22/2026.
Specification
The amendments to the abstract and the specification were received on 6/22/2026.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it was not submitted with markings showing all the changes relative to the immediate prior version, see 37 CFR § 1.125(c). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 85, lines 4-5, “A trip trajectory of a vehicle within a road network may be defined as a sequence of GPS records (e.g. obtained from probe data), Tx = (x1, x2, x3..., xn), where xi denotes a record within the trajectory, and n denotes the total number of records in this trajectory. Each record xi = (xi.lat, xi.ing, xi.v), where xi.lat, xi.ing, xi.v denote the latitude, the longitude, and the velocity, respectively.” should read “A trip trajectory of a vehicle within a road network may be defined as a sequence of GPS records (e.g. obtained from probe data), Tx = (x1, x2, x3..., xn), where [[xi]] xi denotes a record within the trajectory, denotes the total number of records in this trajectory[[.]], and in each i = (xi.lat, xi.ing, xi.v), i.lat, xi.ing, and xi.v denote the latitude, the longitude, and the velocity, respectively.” This appears to be a typographical error.
In paragraph 103, line 2, a space should be inserted between the number “1404” and the word “and”. This appears to be a typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 9 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 6, lines 1-2, “clustering the second set of detected data points into a second set of one or more clusters” should read “clustering the second set of detected data points into [[a]] the second set of one or more clusters” to make it clear that the second set of one or more clusters is the same second set of one or more clusters that is clustered in claim 1, lines 14-15.
In claims 6 and 14, lines 2-3, “clustering based on geohash-specific transition point, wherein for each geohash, clustering is performed on transition points” should read “clustering based on geohash-specific transition points, wherein for each geohash of a plurality of geohashes, clustering is performed on the transition points” to provide sufficient antecedent basis for multiple geohashes in the claim, and to make the relationship clear between the transition points recited in the claim.
Claim 9, line 12, “movement along a route” should read “movement along [[a]] the route” to make it clear that the plurality of data points represent movement along the same route that the GPS receivers are carried along in lines 9-11.
In claim 14, lines 1-2, “clustering the second set of detected data points into a second set of one or more clusters” should read “clustering the second set of detected data points into [[a]] the second set of one or more clusters” to make it clear that the second set of one or more clusters is the same second set of one or more clusters that is grouped in claim 9, lines 20-21.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 19, lines 1-2, the limitation “the method is performed via an identification server” renders the claim indefinite because the relationship is unclear between the identification server and the computer that implements the method in claim 1, line 1. Paragraph 26 discloses in some embodiments the identification server hosts software application programs for identifying one or more parking lots relative to a location, therefore, for the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the computer that implements the method of claim 1 is the identification server.
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.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a two-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP § 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP § 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG ONE): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG TWO): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP § 2106.05
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 9 is directed to a system for identifying parking lots (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 9 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong One
Regarding Prong One of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. See MPEP § 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP § 2106.04(a)-(c). Independent claim 9 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the analysis. Claim 9 recites:
A system for identifying one or more parking lots relative to a point of interest (POI), the system comprising at least one processor, and at least one memory storing computer program code, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to:
detect from a plurality of data points, obtained from probe data generated by one or more global positioning system (GPS) receivers carried by one or more vehicles or one or more devices associated with users along a route, one or more data points that are indicative of a parking action in a parking lot, the plurality of data points representing movement along a route from a starting location to a destination location, each data point indicating a location [mental process/step];
associate a first set of one or more of the detected data points with the POI based on a proximity of the indicated location of each of the one or more detected data points relative to a location of the POI, the POI being the starting location or the destination location [mental process/step];
associate a second set of one or more of the detected data points with one or more geographical areas in proximity with the POI, the association based on a proximity of the indicated location of each of the one or more detected data points relative to the one or more geographical areas [mental process/step];
group the first set of detected data points into a first set of one or more clusters, and group the second set of detected data points into a second set of one or more clusters [mental process/step];
determine a centroid for each cluster, each centroid being indicative of a location of a parking lot [mental process/step]; and
identify the one or more parking lots relative to the POI, including selecting one or more of the centroids from the first set of clusters as the one or more parking lots when a number of the first set of detected data points within proximity of the POI exceeds a threshold, and otherwise selecting one or more of the centroids from the second set of clusters corresponding to the geographical areas or neighboring geographical areas as the one or more parking lots when the number of the first set of detected data points within proximity of the POI is less than the threshold [mental process/step].
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “detect … data points that are indicative of a parking action…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person identifying end points of routes in position data. The limitation “associate a first set of … points with the POI…” in the context of this claim encompasses the person selecting a first group of the data points that are within a distance of an end point. The limitation “associate a second set of … points with … areas in proximity with the POI” in the context of this claim encompasses the person selecting a second group of the data points, that are not included in the first group, and that are within a distance of a location that is not the end point. The limitations “group the … points … into … clusters” and “determine a centroid for each cluster…” in the context of the claim encompasses the person selecting subsets of the data points from the groups and finding the center of each cluster. The limitation “identify the one or more parking lots…” in the context of this claim encompasses the person designating centroids as parking lots based on the number of data points in each group. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong Two
Regarding Prong Two of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A system for identifying one or more parking lots relative to a point of interest (POI), the system comprising at least one processor, and at least one memory storing computer program code, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to [applying the abstract ideas using generic computer components]:
detect from a plurality of data points, obtained from probe data generated by one or more global positioning system (GPS) receivers carried by one or more vehicles or one or more devices associated with users along a route, one or more data points that are indicative of a parking action in a parking lot, the plurality of data points representing movement along a route from a starting location to a destination location, each data point indicating a location;
associate a first set of one or more of the detected data points with the POI based on a proximity of the indicated location of each of the one or more detected data points relative to a location of the POI, the POI being the starting location or the destination location;
associate a second set of one or more of the detected data points with one or more geographical areas in proximity with the POI, the association based on a proximity of the indicated location of each of the one or more detected data points relative to the one or more geographical areas;
group the first set of detected data points into a first set of one or more clusters, and group the second set of detected data points into a second set of one or more clusters;
determine a centroid for each cluster, each centroid being indicative of a location of a parking lot; and
identify the one or more parking lots relative to the POI, including selecting one or more of the centroids from the first set of clusters as the one or more parking lots when a number of the first set of detected data points within proximity of the POI exceeds a threshold, and otherwise selecting one or more of the centroids from the second set of clusters corresponding to the geographical areas or neighboring geographical areas as the one or more parking lots when the number of the first set of detected data points within proximity of the POI is less than the threshold.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
The “processor” and “memory” is/are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing the generic computer function(s) of pattern/feature recognition and associating data) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 9 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor and memory to “detect … data points that are indicative of a parking action…”, “associate a first set of … points with the POI…”, “associate a second set of … points with … areas in proximity with the POI”, “group the … points … into … clusters”, “determine a centroid for each cluster…”, and “identify the one or more parking lots…” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim(s) 1 is/are substantially the same subject matter as claim 9 except drawn to a computer-implemented method for identifying parking lots (i.e., a process) which falls under one of the statutory categories in step 1. Therefore, claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under step 2 for the same reasons above.
Dependent claim(s) 2-8 and 10-19 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception. Therefore, dependent claims 2-8 and 10-19 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejections of claims 1 and 9.
Therefore, claims 1-19 is/are ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
It is noted that paragraph 122 discloses a structured interaction between a requestor device and the data module. Narrowing the scope of the independent claims to performing the computer-implemented method in response to receiving data and information from the requestor device, and sending the resulting information back to the requestor device could integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Alternatively, the independent claims could be narrowed to include the structure interaction between requestor device, the identification server, and the transaction processing server. The disclosure does not appear to include other common practical applications such as controlling a vehicle based on the parking lot locations or displaying a map of the parking locations.
Examiner encourages Applicant to set an interview to discuss potential amendments for overcoming the above rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 are allowable over the prior art and may be found allowable after the above claim objections and rejections are remedied.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1 and 9, the prior art does not disclose nor render obvious, in combination with the other elements required by the claim, detecting from a plurality of data points, obtained from probe data generated by one or more global positioning system (GPS) receivers carried by one or more vehicles or one or more devices associated with users along a route, one or more data points that are indicative of a parking action in a parking lot, the plurality of data points representing movement along the route from a starting location to a destination location, each data point indicating a location; associating a first set of one or more of the detected data points with the POI based on a proximity of the indicated location of each of the one or more detected data points relative to a location of the POI, the POI being the starting location or the destination location; associating a second set of one or more of the detected data points with one or more geographical areas in proximity with the POI, the association based on a proximity of the indicated location of each of the one or more detected data points relative to the one or more geographical areas; clustering the first set of detected data points into a first set of one or more clusters, and clustering the second set of detected data points into a second set of one or more clusters; determining a centroid for each cluster, each centroid being indicative of a location of a parking lot: and identifying the one or more parking lots relative to the POI, including selecting one or more of the centroids from the first set of clusters as the one or more parking lots when a number of the first set of detected data points within proximity of the POI exceeds a threshold, and otherwise selecting one or more of the centroids from the second set of clusters corresponding to the geographical areas or neighboring geographical areas as the one or more parking lots when the number of the first set of detected data points within proximity of the POI is less than the threshold.
Sumner et al. (US WO 2021/191685), hereinafter Sumner, disclose identifying parking areas based on points of interest by clustering trip end points using a density-based clustering algorithm. Sumner further discloses tuning parameters that control the size of clusters, including using a MinPts parameter of a DBSCAN algorithm, which is the minimum number of points required to form a dense region. Sumner does not appear to disclose selecting a parking lot from a first set of the data points associated with a POI based on a proximity to the POI and a second set of the data points associated with one or more geographical areas in proximity with the POI, based on a proximity of the data points relative to the one or more geographical areas. Sumner does not disclose determining and selecting cluster centroids.
Vereshchagin et al. (US 2020/0200562), hereinafter Vereshchagin, disclose a method for determining parking suggestions for a destination location by determining final locations of past routes, clustering the locations into subsets that are associated with map objects, and determining a size and centroid of each cluster. Vereshchagin does not explicitly disclose a first set of the final locations in proximity with the destination location and a second set of the final locations in proximity with one or more geographical areas in proximity to with the destination location, and selecting a parking lot from the sets based on a number of the final locations exceeding a threshold.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings of Sumner and Vereshchagin to identify parking areas associated with a POI by selecting centroids of clusters from a first set of trip end points based on a minimum number of points in a cluster, however, the combination would fail to teach or render obvious associating a second set of trip end points with one or more geographical areas in proximity with the POI, and selecting a cluster centroid as the parking area from the second set when the number of points in the first set of trip end points is below a threshold.
Claims 1-19 may be found allowable after the above objections and rejections are remedied.
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 JOSEPH THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00AM-3:00PM ET.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/JOSEPH THOMPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/TIFFANY P YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights