DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Priority
This U.S. Non-Provisional Patent Application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Serial No. 63/648,874 filed May 17, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed 12/1/2025 has been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 11, 13-14, and 16-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 recites “the one or more action,” but should read “the one or more actions” as in claim 10.
Claims 13-14 and 16-18 appear to improperly depend from claim 1, and should instead depend from claim 12. Because claims 13-14 and 16-18 recite method claims, they cannot properly depend from a system claim (claim 1). In addition, claims 13-14 and 16-18 appear to be the “method” variants of the similar system claims 2-3 and 5-7, which already depend from claim 1. Therefore, it appears that applicant intended for claims 13-14 and 16-18 to depend from claim 12.
Note that claims 13-20 are also rejected under § 112(b) below, since as currently written they depend from a system claim but recite a method, and amending claims 13-14 and 16-18 to depend from claim 12 would resolve both the objections and § 112(b) issues.
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.
Claims 13-20 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 13-20 refer to “The method of claim 1” (claims 13-14, 16-18), with claims 15, 19 and 20 further depending from claims 14, 18, and 19 respectively. However, claim 1 is directed to “A system,” not a method. Therefore, claims 13-20 are indefinite because:
i) claims 13-20 as currently written lack antecedent basis for “The method,” which makes it unclear what “the method” refers to, and
ii) claims 13-20 depend from a system (claim 1) but recite a method, so as written it is unclear whether claims 13-20 are intended to recite a system or a method, and
For the purposes of further examination, it appears to the examiner that claims 13-14 and 16-18 were intended to depend from independent claim 12. Therefore, the examiner interprets, and examines, claims 13-14 and 16-18 as though they recite “The method of claim 12…” below.
To correct the issue, applicant may amend claims 13-14 and 16-18 to depend from claim 12 instead of claim 1.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-11 recite “A system comprising: a processor; and a memory…” (i.e. a machine); and claims 12-20 recite “A method…” (i.e. a process). These claims fall under one of the four categories of statutory subject matter and as a result, pass Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test. However, “Determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) in Step 1 does not end the eligibility analysis, because claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas (such as a mathematical formula or equation), natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection.” See MPEP 2106.04. Accordingly, the examiner continues the subject matter eligibility analysis below.
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claims 1 and 12 (using claim 1 as representative) recite limitations to:
receive…user data and at least one user request for a parking reservation;
identify using the at least one user request for the parking reservation, one or more parking spaces that meet criteria defined in the at least one user request for the parking reservation;
retrieve, from a database, availability information of the one or more parking spaces; (note that “a database” could include a notebook or other written ledger)
provide…the availability of the one or more parking spaces;
receive…a parking space selection, the parking space selection indicating a desired parking space of the one or more parking spaces; and
secure…the desired parking space associated with the parking space selection based on the user data and the at least one user request for the parking reservation
The limitations of independent claims 1 and 12 above are determined to recite an abstract idea (i.e. facilitating a parking reservation for a desired parking space from a plurality of available parking spaces) for the reasons discussed in the following continued Step 2A Prong One analysis. Note that “An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction.” Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
As per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), claim limitations which recite fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations) or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) fall into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” category of judicial exceptions. The processes described by the limitations above for “facilitating a parking reservation for a desired parking space from a plurality of available parking space,” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, amount to fundamental economic principles/practices (the abstract idea “facilitating a parking reservation for a desired parking space from a plurality of available parking space” describes placing a parking reservation based on market information showing available parking spaces – see “placing an order based on displayed market information, Trading Technologies Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)” as per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)), a commercial interaction (facilitating a parking reservation for a desired parking space from a plurality of available parking space describes a commercial interaction to reserve an available parking space via a marketplace) and managing interactions between people (facilitating a parking reservation for a desired parking space from a plurality of available parking space, as per the claim limitations above, describes arranging and executing a parking transaction between a user and a parking marketplace and/or a user and a parking reservation system). Therefore, the claims clearly fall into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas under a number of different considerations.
As described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), “[T]he "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” and “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.” The limitations recited by the representative independent claims 1 and 12 above, under the broadest reasonable interpretation and but for the use of generic computer components, cover concepts (e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) that can reasonably be performed in the human mind or by the human mind with the aid of simple tools such as pen and paper. For example, the “receive…user data” and “retrieve, from a database, availability information…,” and “receive…a parking space selection” steps amount to observations, while the “identify…one or more parking spaces,” “provide…the availability,” “and secure…the desired parking space…” (e.g. update a ledger indicating reservation of the space) steps would be considered evaluations, judgments, and opinions, or steps that could otherwise be performed via the human mind with the aid of simple tools such as pen and paper. Therefore, as the processes above described by the representative independent claims 1 and 12 can be characterized as mental processes (i.e. observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion), but for the recitation of generic computer components in the claims, the claims fall under the “mental processes” category of judicial exceptions (i.e. abstract ideas).
As claims 1 and 12 are identified by the examiner as reciting concepts that fall under more than one abstract idea grouping (i.e. “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes”), the examiner considers the limitations together as a single abstract idea for the purposes of the Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B analysis, in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(II)(B).
Step 2A Prong Two:
The judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) recited in claims 1 and 12 is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. facilitating a parking reservation for a desired parking space from a plurality of available parking space) using generic computers/computer components (i.e. “A system comprising: a processor; and a memory including instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to…,” “via a user device,” “from a database,” “at a user interface on the user device,” “via the user interface on the user device,” and “via a digital market place” of claim 1; and : “via a user device,” “from a database,” “at a user interface on the user device,” “via the user interface on the user device,” and “via a digital market place” of claim 12). See MPEP 2106.05(f), showing “[C]laims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp.” These elements present no more mere instructions to carry out the abstract idea using generic computer implementation, or within a computer environment. Nothing in claims 1/12 recites any subject matter that could be construed as providing an inventive concept or otherwise integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, because the claims, considered as a whole, do not recite anything that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Claims 1 and 12 do not include additional elements, whether considered alone or as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) because as mentioned above, the claims recite mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. facilitating a parking reservation for a desired parking space from a plurality of available parking space) using generic computers/computer components (i.e. “A system comprising: a processor; and a memory including instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to…,” “via a user device,” “from a database,” “at a user interface on the user device,” “via the user interface on the user device,” and “via a digital market place” of claim 1; and : “via a user device,” “from a database,” “at a user interface on the user device,” “via the user interface on the user device,” and “via a digital market place” of claim 12). Nothing in claims 1/12 recites any subject matter that could be construed as providing an inventive concept or otherwise amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Considering the additional elements as an ordered combination does not alter the analysis above or add significantly more.
Dependent Claims 2-11 and 13-20:
Note: As per the claim objections and § 112(b) rejections above, claims 13-14 and 16-18 are interpreted as depending from claim 12.
Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-20 are directed to the same abstract idea as independent claims 1 and 12 above as they do not recite anything that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-11, 13-16, and 18-20 recite the following limitations which further describe the abstract idea above, by reciting limitations for: wherein the desired parking space is associated with a hotel/resort/ski resort (claims 2-4 and 13-15); wherein the criteria includes at least a duration, a distance relative to a specified location, an arrival time, and a cost range (claims 5 and 16); retrieve, from the database, one or more recommendations based on the user data and the at least one user request for the parking reservation (claim 7 and 18); provide…the one or more recommendations (claims 8 and 19); and receiving a response to the one or more recommendations (claims 9 and 20); take one or more actions based on the response to the one or more recommendations (claim 10); wherein the one or more action includes interaction with a reservation system to reserve a table at a restaurant (claim 11).
Claims 7-10 and 18-20 recite mere instructions to carry out abstract idea steps above using generic computer components/generic computer implementation (i.e. “wherein the instructions further cause the processor to” of claims 7-10, “from the database” of claims 7 and 18, “at the user interface on the user device” of claims 8 and 19, and “via the user interface on the user device” of claims 9 and 20).
Claims 6 and 17 recites “wherein the database is disposed remotely from the user device” – however, the limitation merely describes a generic computer configuration (a remote database) describing a remote database at a high level of generality, which at best generally links the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment but does not add anything that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-6, 12, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 7956769 B1 to Pearl.
Claim 1: Pearl discloses:
A system (Pearl: Fig. 1, Col. 3: 17-46 showing reservation system 112) comprising:
a processor (Pearl: Col. 11: 1-34 showing reservation system may be implemented by computer system 500, including processor 502); and
a memory including instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to (Pearl: Col. 11: 1-34 showing reservation system may be implemented by computer system 500, including memory storing applications/program instructions carried out by computer system; also see Col. 2: 37-46 showing computer-readable medium storing instructions implemented by computer system):
receive, via a user device, user data and at least one user request for a parking reservation (Pearl: Col. 3: 4-7, Col. 5: 25-44, Col. 10: 16-20 showing receiving a user parking reservation request via a user device, including a plurality of user entered criteria/search parameters such pertaining to a location, time, duration, price, activity, and/or event);
identify using the at least one user request for the parking reservation, one or more parking spaces that meet criteria defined in the at least one user request for the parking reservation (Pearl: Col. 3: 7-10, Col. 5: 45-55, Col. 10: 20-24 showing searching for and identifying a number of parking spaces that meet user’s parking reservation request);
retrieve, from a database (Pearl: Col. 4: 41-47, Col. 9: 63-66 further showing available parking spaces are stored in repository 128), availability information of the one or more parking spaces (Pearl: Col. 5: 22-55 showing available parking spaces are retrieved, based on the parking spaces stored in the parking repository 128, and Col. 10: 17-24 showing a set of available parking spaces is obtained);
provide, at a user interface on the user device (Pearl: Col. 3: 43-60 showing “To interact with the users, reservation system 112 may include a customer user interface 116 (e.g., graphical user interface (GUI), web-based user interface, etc.) that is accessed by the users…” over one or more user devices, such as a PC, mobile phone, or other digital computing device of the user; See Fig. 1 showing customer user interface 116), the availability of the one or more parking spaces (Pearl: Col. 3: 8-10, Col. 5: 56 – Col. 6, Col. 8: 7-9, Col. 8: 49-55, and Col. 9: 66 – Col. 10: 1 showing providing the available parking spaces to the user by displaying the available parking spaces to the user via the user interface, such as on a map interface);
receive, via the user interface on the user device, a parking space selection, the parking space selection indicating a desired parking space of the one or more parking spaces (Pearl: Col. 6: 7-16, Col. 10: 25-29 showing user selects a parking space via the user interface, from the set of available parking spaces displayed to the user); and
secure, via a digital market place (Pearl: Col. 3: 26-36, Col. 4: 18-60, Col. 9: 52 – Col. 10: 8 showing reservation system receives listing of available parking spaces from enrolled businesses, and rents/reserves them out to users that desire to reserve the parking spaces, i.e. a “digital market place,” under the broadest reasonable interpretation), the desired parking space associated with the parking space selection based on the user data and the at least one user request for the parking reservation (Pearl: Col. 6: 17-39, Col. 10: 34-45 showing the reservation system reserves the parking space, updates the repository to indicate the parking space as reserved/reduce available parking space inventory, and receives payment from the user for the parking space, after a user selects a parking space)
Claim 5: Pearl discloses claim 1, and further discloses:
wherein the criteria includes at least a duration (Pearl: Col. 1: 62-65, Col. 3: 5-8, Col. 5: 35-40 showing parking duration), a distance relative to a specified location (Pearl: Col. 10: 16-24 showing “The parking reservation request may correspond to a search for available parking based on one or more search parameters, such as location, time, duration, price, activity, and/or event…the available parking spaces may be obtained based on proximity to a certain event on a certain date”; also see Col. 1: 62-65, Col. 3: 5-8, Col. 5: 35-40 showing location specified in the request), an arrival time (Pearl: Col. 3: 5-8, Col. 5: 35-40 parameters in reservation request include start time for the parking reservation), and a cost range (Pearl: Col. 5: 35-40 price range such as maximum price per hour)
Claim 6: Pearl discloses claim 1, and further discloses:
wherein the database is disposed remotely from the user device (Pearl: Fig. 1 showing parking repository 128 located remote from the customer user interface 116; also see Col. 11 30-34, Fig. 5 showing parking repository may be stored on storage 506 of computer system 500 implementing the reservation system 112)
Claim 12: See the rejection of claim 1 above disclosing analogous limitations to claim 12. Pearl further discloses “A method” (Pearl: Col. 2: 47 – Col. 3: 3 showing methods for facilitating parking reservations/usage; also see Fig. 4).
Claim 16: See the rejection of claim 5 above.
Claim 17: See the rejection of claim 6 above.
Note: As per the claim objections and § 112(b) rejection above, the examiner interprets claims 16-17 as being intended to depend from method claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 2-4 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7956769 B1 to Pearl in view of US 20120323643 A1 to Volz.
Claim 2: Pearl discloses claim 1. With respect to the following limitation, Pearl does not explicitly teach that the parking space is associated with a hotel, however, Volz teaches:
wherein the desired parking space is associated with a hotel (Volz: See TABLE 3 between ¶ 0167-0168 showing the parking facility including parking spaces associated with a hotel)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the parking being associated with a hotel as taught by Volz in the parking reservation system of Pearl, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 3: Pearl discloses claim 1. With respect to the following limitation, Pearl does not explicitly teach that the parking space is associated with a resort, however, Volz teaches:
wherein the desired parking space is associated with a resort (Volz: See TABLE 3 between ¶ 0167-0168 showing the parking facility including parking spaces associated with a ski resort)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the parking being associated with a ski resort as taught by Volz in the parking reservation system of Pearl, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 4: Pearl discloses claim 3. With respect to the following limitation, Pearl does not explicitly teach that the parking space is associated with a ski resort, however, Volz teaches:
wherein the resort includes a ski resort (Volz: See TABLE 3 between ¶ 0167-0168 showing the parking facility including parking spaces associated with a ski resort)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the parking being associated with a ski resort as taught by Volz in the parking reservation system of Pearl, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 13: See the rejection of claim 2 above.
Claim 14: See the rejection of claim 3 above.
Claim 15: See the rejection of claim 4 above.
Note: As per the claim objections and § 112(b) rejection above, the examiner interprets claims 13-14 as being intended to depend from method claim 12.
Claims 7-11 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7956769 B1 to Pearl in view of US 20190043083 A1 to Ornstein et al. (Ornstein).
Claim 7: Pearl discloses claim 1. With respect to the limitation:
wherein the instructions further cause the processor to retrieve, from the database, one or more recommendations based on the user data and the at least one user request for the parking reservation
Pearl teaches retrieving and displaying one or more recommendations based on user data and data included in the parking reservation (Pearl: Col. 9: 25-35 showing options suggested to the user to make a restaurant reservation alongside the parking reservation, or to buy tickets at a venue that the user is visiting for an event, e.g. Fenway Park), but merely lacks a teaching of retrieving the recommendation(s) from a database.
However, Ornstein teaches retrieving targeted offers associated with a parking reservation request from a database and providing the offers to the parking reservation user (Ornstein: ¶ 0009, ¶ 0036, ¶ 0063-0069 showing generating targeted promotions in association with a parking reservation; with ¶ 0032, ¶ 0066 showing data retrieved and used for targeted promotions stored in central database). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the retrieval and generation of targeted promotional offers associated with parking of Ornstein in the parking reservation system of Pearl with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation “to provide an improved yield management system for parking systems to increase utilization and improve revenue generation” (Ornstein: ¶ 0005), and
Claim 8: Pearl/Ornstein teach claim 7. Pearl, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the instructions further cause the processor to provide, at the user interface on the user device, the one or more recommendations (Pearl: Col. 9: 25-35 showing options suggested to the user to make a restaurant reservation alongside the parking reservation, or to buy tickets at a venue that the user is visiting for an event, e.g. Fenway Park)
Claim 9: Pearl/Ornstein teach claim 8. Pearl, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the instructions further cause the processor to receive, via the user interface on the user device, a response to the one or more recommendations (Pearl: Col. 9: 25-43 showing user may make selections to make the additional reservation that was recommended within the form or using an outside page)
Claim 10: Pearl/Ornstein teach claim 9. Pearl, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the instructions further cause the processor to take one or more actions based on the response to the one or more recommendations (Pearl: Col 9: 25-43 showing “The reservation form also includes a number of options 238-240 that may be included with the parking space reservation. In particular, option 238 may allow the user to make a restaurant reservation along with the parking reservation. For example, option 238 may allow the user to access a webpage that searches for and reserves spots at restaurants near the parking space” and showing confirming the reservation)
Claim 11: Pearl/Ornstein teach claim 10. Pearl, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the one or more action includes interaction with a reservation system to reserve a table at a restaurant (Pearl: Col. 9: 25-43 showing “option 238 may allow the user to make a restaurant reservation along with the parking reservation” as shown in Fig. 2C; note that one of ordinary skill clearly knows making a restaurant reservation includes reserving a table)
Claim 18: See the rejection of claim 7 above.
Claim 19: See the rejection of claim 8 above.
Claim 20: See the rejection of claim 9 above.
Note: As per the claim objections and § 112(b) rejection above, the examiner interprets claim 18 as being intended to depend from method claim 12.
Conclusion
The following reference is not relied upon but is relevant to the instant application:
US 20180268322 A1 teaches a parking reservation system for receiving a reservation request, displaying available parking spaces, selecting an available parking space, and reserving the selected parking space.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hunter Molnar whose telephone number is (571)272-8271. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 - 5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571)272-4602. 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.
/HUNTER MOLNAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628