DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is a non-final, first office action in response to the application filed 18 June 2025.
Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
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 1-10 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 1, the Applicant claims, “conducting the premium tour or activity (47) at the scheduled optimal day and time, or if a common day and time is no longer available, notifying all parties and initiating refund processes (50).” The limitation "the scheduled optimal day and time" in the claim has insufficient antecedent basis. In particular, the Applicant has failed to introduce or define “a scheduled optimal day and time” previously in the claim, rendering it unclear as to what the claim is referring to with this recitation. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read, “conducting the premium tour or activity (47) at a scheduled optimal day and time, or if a common day and time is no longer available, notifying all parties and initiating refund processes (50).” Claims 2-10 depend upon claim 1 and are rejected via dependency.
With respect to claim 1, the Applicant claims, “calculating credits to Refund (48) in the event eventual different prices per person are paid by the different groups that joined and the Reseller(s) benefits.” The limitation " the Reseller(s) benefits" in the claim has insufficient antecedent basis. In particular, the Applicant has failed to introduce or define “a reseller” or “a reseller benefit(s),” previously in the claim, rendering it unclear as to what the claim is referring to with this recitation. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read, “calculating credits to Refund (48) in the event eventual different prices per person are paid by the different groups that joined and a Reseller(s) benefits.” Claims 2-10 depend upon claim 1 and are rejected via dependency.
With respect to claim 8, the Applicant claims, “A data processing system comprising the physical means necessary for the execution of the computer-implemented system and computer-implemented process described in claim 1.” The limitation "the computer-implemented system" in the claim has insufficient antecedent basis. In particular, the Applicant has failed to introduce or define “a computer-implemented system” previously in the claim of a depended upon claim, rendering it unclear as to what the claim is referring to with this recitation. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read, “A data processing system comprising the physical means necessary for the execution of the computer-implemented process described in claim 1.”
With respect to claim 8, the Applicant claims, “A data processing system comprising the physical means necessary for the execution of the computer-implemented system and computer-implemented process described in claim 1.” The Applicant has rendered this claim indefinite and unclear for failing to particularly define their invention. In this case, the Applicant has directed the claim towards “a data processing system,” that is a statutory class of an “an apparatus,” however they have further recited that it performs the process described in claim 1, that is a statutory class of “a method.” This recitation renders the claim indefinite and unclear, as it remains unclear as to whether the claim is directed towards a statutory class of “an apparatus,” a statutory class of “a method,” or a combination of the two (which is not permitted). Additionally, it remains unclear if this claim is an independent claim, or if it is a dependent claim and depends upon claim 1 (similar to claims 2-7). For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to be an independent claim, and to read, “A data processing system comprising: a physical means that performs the following steps: receiving a request (40) from a customer group to create a premium tour or activity in an area or region; identifying entities to notify (41) next in a creation process of tours and activities and notify them; determining and initiating necessary timers (42) to facilitate the creation process; waiting for additional customer groups (43) to join in to meet participation threshold; notifying additional entities (44) as needed so that the premium tour or activity gains sufficient participants (45); determining an optimal day and time for booking (46) the premium tour or activity; conducting the premium tour or activity (47) at the scheduled optimal day and time, or if a common day and time is no longer available, notifying all parties and initiating refund processes (50); calculating credits to Refund (48) in the event eventual different prices per person are paid by the different groups that joined and the Reseller(s) benefits; and notifying all involved parties of successful scheduling of the Premium Tour or Activity (49), and initiating refund processes as necessary.”
With respect to claim 9, the Applicant claims, “A computer program comprising programming code or instructions suitable for carrying out the computer-implemented process described in claim 1, wherein said computer program is stored, and is executed in one or more data processing systems, remote or in-site, performing the respective steps described in claim 1 or distributed between one or more servers and personal computing devices.” The Applicant has rendered this claim indefinite and unclear for failing to particularly define their invention. In this case, the Applicant has directed the claim towards “A computer program,” that is a statutory class of an “an apparatus,” however they have further recited that it is suitable for carrying out the process described in claim 1, and performs the steps described in claim 1 that is a statutory class of “a method.” This recitation renders the claim indefinite and unclear, as it remains unclear as to whether the claim is directed towards a statutory class of “an apparatus,” a statutory class of “a method,” or a combination of the two (which is not permitted). Additionally, it remains unclear if this claim is an independent claim, or if it is a dependent claim and depends upon claim 1 (similar to claims 2-7). For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to be an independent claim, and to read, “A computer program comprising programming code or instructions, wherein said computer program is stored, and is executed in one or more data processing systems, remote or in-site, or distributed between one or more servers and personal computing devices, wherein the program performs the following steps: receiving a request (40) from a customer group to create a premium tour or activity in an area or region; identifying entities to notify (41) next in a creation process of tours and activities and notify them; determining and initiating necessary timers (42) to facilitate the creation process; waiting for additional customer groups (43) to join in to meet participation threshold; notifying additional entities (44) as needed so that the premium tour or activity gains sufficient participants (45); determining an optimal day and time for booking (46) the premium tour or activity; conducting the premium tour or activity (47) at the scheduled optimal day and time, or if a common day and time is no longer available, notifying all parties and initiating refund processes (50); calculating credits to Refund (48) in the event eventual different prices per person are paid by the different groups that joined and the Reseller(s) benefits; and notifying all involved parties of successful scheduling of the Premium Tour or Activity (49), and initiating refund processes as necessary.”
With respect to claim 10, the Applicant claims, “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a programming code or instructions that implement the process according to claim 1.” The Applicant has rendered this claim indefinite and unclear for failing to particularly define their invention. In this case, the Applicant has directed the claim towards “A non-transitory computer-readable medium,” that is a statutory class of an “an article of manufacture,” however they have further recited that it is suitable for carrying out the process described in claim 1, and performs the steps described in claim 1 that is a statutory class of “a method.” This recitation renders the claim indefinite and unclear, as it remains unclear as to whether the claim is directed towards a statutory class of “an article of manufacture,” a statutory class of “a method,” or a combination of the two (which is not permitted). Additionally, it remains unclear if this claim is an independent claim, or if it is a dependent claim and depends upon claim 1 (similar to claims 2-7). For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to be an independent claim, and to read, “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a programming code or instructions, that when implemented by a computer, performs the process of: receiving a request (40) from a customer group to create a premium tour or activity in an area or region; identifying entities to notify (41) next in a creation process of tours and activities and notify them; determining and initiating necessary timers (42) to facilitate the creation process; waiting for additional customer groups (43) to join in to meet participation threshold; notifying additional entities (44) as needed so that the premium tour or activity gains sufficient participants (45); determining an optimal day and time for booking (46) the premium tour or activity; conducting the premium tour or activity (47) at the scheduled optimal day and time, or if a common day and time is no longer available, notifying all parties and initiating refund processes (50); calculating credits to Refund (48) in the event eventual different prices per person are paid by the different groups that joined and the Reseller(s) benefits; and notifying all involved parties of successful scheduling of the Premium Tour or Activity (49), and initiating refund processes as necessary.”
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite receiving a request (40) from a customer group to create a premium tour or activity in an area or region; identifying entities to notify (41) next in a creation process of tours and activities and notify them; determining and initiating necessary timers (42) to facilitate the creation process; waiting for additional customer groups (43) to join in to meet participation threshold; notifying additional entities (44) as needed so that the premium tour or activity gains sufficient participants (45); determining an optimal day and time for booking (46) the premium tour or activity; conducting the premium tour or activity (47) at the scheduled optimal day and time, or if a common day and time is no longer available, notifying all parties and initiating refund processes (50); calculating credits to Refund (48) in the event eventual different prices per person are paid by the different groups that joined and the Reseller(s) benefits; and notifying all involved parties of successful scheduling of the Premium Tour or Activity (49), and initiating refund processes as necessary.
The limitations of receiving a request from a customer group to create a premium tour or activity in an area or region, identifying entities to notify next in a creation process of tours and activities and notify them, determining and initiating necessary timers to facilitate the creation process, waiting for additional customer groups to join in to meet participation threshold, notifying additional entities as needed so that the premium tour or activity gains sufficient participants, determining an optimal day and time for booking the premium tour or activity, conducting the premium tour or activity at the scheduled optimal day and time, or if a common day and time is no longer available, notifying all parties and initiating refund processes, calculating credits to refund in the event eventual different prices per person are paid by the different groups that joined and the reseller benefits, and notifying all involved parties of successful scheduling of the premium tour or activity, and initiating refund processes as necessary; as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass managing commercial activities (sales activities, business relations, marketing), and elements that can be performed in the human mind. That is, other than reciting the use of generic computer elements (computer, data processing system, programming code, server, personal computing devices, processing systems, computer-readable medium), the claims recite an abstract idea. In particular, receiving a request from a customer group to create a premium tour or activity in an area or region, identifying entities to notify next in a creation process of tours and activities and notify them, determining and initiating necessary timers to facilitate the creation process, waiting for additional customer groups to join in to meet participation threshold, notifying additional entities as needed so that the premium tour or activity gains sufficient participants, determining an optimal day and time for booking the premium tour or activity, notifying all involved parties of successful scheduling of the premium tour or activity, conducting the premium tour or activity at the scheduled optimal day and time; encompass an organizer requesting to a tour/activity for a group, identifying entities to invite to join the group and inviting them, starting a deadline timer for the entities to joining to reach a minimum threshold number, notifying more entities as needed to reach the threshold, determining a best date/time to schedule the tour and scheduling the tour, notifying the group of the scheduled date/time, and conducting the tour; which encompasses the management of commercial activity (sales activities, business relations, and marketing). In addition, the claims further recite if a common day and time is no longer available, notifying all parties and initiating refund processes, calculating credits to refund in the event eventual different prices per person are paid by the different groups that joined and the reseller benefits, and initiating refund processes as necessary; which encompasses determining refunds and benefits for entities in the group based on the tour no longer being available due to scheduling issues; which encompasses the management of commercial activity (sales activities, business relations, and marketing). As such, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. In addition, the claims recite, receiving a request from a customer group to create a premium tour or activity in an area or region, identifying entities to notify next in a creation process of tours and activities and notify them, determining and initiating necessary timers to facilitate the creation process, waiting for additional customer groups to join in to meet participation threshold, notifying additional entities as needed so that the premium tour or activity gains sufficient participants, determining an optimal day and time for booking the premium tour or activity, notifying all involved parties of successful scheduling of the premium tour or activity and notifying all parties and initiating refund processes if a common day and time is no longer available, calculating credits to refund in the event eventual different prices per person are paid by the different groups that joined and the reseller benefits; encompass elements that can be performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). As such, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not recite additional elements, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, that improve the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The claims do not recite the use of, or apply the abstract idea with, a particular machine, the claims do not recite the transformation of an article from one state or thing into another. Finally, the claims do not recite additional elements, taken individually and in an ordered combination, that apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Instead, the claims recite the use of generic computer elements (computer, data processing system, programming code, server, personal computing devices, processing systems, computer-readable medium), as tools to carry out the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer elements and machines to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are directed to non-patent eligible subject matter.
The dependent claims 2-7, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea. In particular, the claims further recite the types of entities and the types of resellers, which merely narrows the field of use, and thus does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea (claims 2 and 5). In addition, the claims further recite the type of area or regions, which merely narrows the field of use, and thus does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea (claims 3 and 4). In addition, the claims further recite using generic computer elements (Internet, internet network, servers, engines), as tools to carry out the abstract idea; and thus does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea (claims 6 and 7).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Javit (US 2016/0019472 A1) (hereinafter Javit), in view of Wiseman et al. (US 2013/0238370 A1) (hereinafter Wiseman).
With respect to claims 1, and 8-10, Javit teaches:
Receiving a request from a customer group to create a premium tour or activity in an area or region (See at least paragraphs 3, 4, 25, 32, 35, 36, 46, 48, 49, and 51 which describe a user requesting to host an activity or event in an area, such as a venue or tourist attraction).
Identifying entities to notify next in a creation process of tours and activities and notify them (See at least paragraphs 4, 6, 25, 32, 33, 34, 47, 49, 51, and 54 which describe a host identifying specific individuals to invite to the group activity, and posting the activity in a public forum for users to join the group).
Determining and initiating necessary timers to facilitate the creation process; Waiting for additional customer groups to join in to meet participation threshold (See at least paragraphs 33, 41, and 52 which describe setting a deadline for a group to reach a threshold number of participants, wherein the system waits for users to join until the deadline, and if the not reached, then cancelling the event).
Notifying additional entities as needed so that the premium tour or activity gains sufficient participants (See at least paragraphs 4, 6, 25, 32, 33, 34, 47, 49, 51, and 54 which describe a host identifying specific individuals to invite to the group activity, and posting the activity in a public forum for users to join the group).
Conducting the premium tour or activity at the scheduled optimal day and time, or if the event is no longer available, notifying all parties and initiating refund processes (See at least paragraphs 3, 4, 39, 40, 51, 52, 59, 60, 61, and 63 which describe conducting the reserving and doing the event/activity at the desired date and time when the terms are satisfied, and notifying users and refunding them if the event/activity is cancelled).
Calculating credits to Refund in the event eventual different prices per person are paid by the different groups that joined and the Reseller(s) benefits, and initiating refund processes as necessary (See at least paragraphs 3, 40, 51, 52, and 63 which describe calculating refunds for participants that joined a group, wherein the participants could have paid different amounts. It is noted that the reseller benefits, being not defined, is being interpreted to be the benefits of use of the service).
Notifying all involved parties of successful scheduling of the Premium Tour or Activity (See at least paragraphs 4, 39, 60, and 61 which describe notifying group members, the host, and the venue of the successful booking of the activity).
Javit discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 8-10 as stated above. Javit does not explicitly disclose the following, however Wiseman teaches:
Determining an optimal day and time for booking the premium tour or activity; Conducting the premium tour or activity at the scheduled optimal day and time, or if a common day and time is no longer available, then attempt to schedule it (See at least paragraphs 28, 30, 39, 40, and 52 which describe booking a group activity for a group of individuals, wherein the booking system identifies the optimal day to schedule the activity based on the individuals’ schedules, and if no common day becomes available, scheduling it for a day with a majority of individuals).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of creating a group activity in response to a host request, wherein the system invites private and public users to join the group activity, wherein the users have a deadline to join and the activity much reach a minimum threshold of users before being booked, and wherein in response to failing to meet the terms of the activity, refunding the users of Javit, with the system and method of booking a group activity for a group of individuals, wherein the booking system identifies the optimal day to schedule the activity based on the individuals’ schedules, and if no common day becomes available, scheduling it for a day with a majority of individuals of Wiseman. By returning the booking a schedule at an optimal data and time, a booking system will predictably be able to increase the likelihood of an activity reaching the minimum number of participants, thus increasing the likelihood of succeeding. In addition, by combining the attempting to and scheduling it when a common day cannot be found for all of the users as taught by Wiseman, with refunding users when the event cannot be booked of Javit, one would reasonably predict that users that can no longer attend a planned event will be refunded.
With respect to claim 2, the combination of Javit and Wiseman discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. In addition, Javit teaches:
Wherein the entities are selected from the group consisting of: Resellers, Resellers Establishments, Resellers Recommendation Staff, Reseller Customers, Tour Operators and "direct" Customers using a company direct brand website, and/or Applications and/or Apps Software (See at least paragraphs 4, 6, 25, 32, 33, 34, 47, 49, 51, and 54 which describe a host identifying specific individuals to invite to the group activity, and posting the activity in a public forum for users to join the group, which the examiner notes are resellers (public forum) and customers).
With respect to claim 3, Javit/Wiseman discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. In addition, Javit teaches:
Wherein an area or region comprising a set of Geographical Area Networks comprises Geographical Area #1 Network (6) and/or Geographical Area #2 Network (12) and/or Geographical Area #3 Network (13) up to and/or Geographical Area #n Network (14), wherein #n represents an infinites number of possibilities (See at least paragraphs 3, 4, 22, 23, 25, and 42-44 which describe a host planning an activity or event at a venue or tourist attraction).
With respect to claim 4, Javit/Wiseman discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 3 as stated above. In addition, Javit teaches:
Wherein a Geographical Area Network of the set of Geographical Area Network comprises a set of Resellers, Reseller Establishments, Resellers Recommenders, Reseller Customers, Tour Operators and Area "direct" Customers (See at least paragraphs 3, 4, 6, 21, 22, 25, 26, 30, 32, 34, 42-44, 47, 49, and 54 which describe the host, customers/individuals, public forum, search websites, social media platforms, third-party marketing, venues, and coordinators that make up a network of parties that plan, organize, host, and attend events and activities).
With respect to claim 5, Javit/Wiseman discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 2 as stated above. In addition, Javit teaches:
Wherein the Resellers comprise at least one Reseller establishment, one Recommender from Resellers (102) linked to Customers from Resellers (101) and up to an infinite range of #n Reseller Establishments (103.n) and #n Recommenders from Resellers (102) (See at least paragraphs 3, 4, 6, 21, 25, 30, 32, 34, 48, 51, and 54 which describe hosts and coordinators that invite and recommend events and activities to customers).
With respect to claim 6, Javit/Wiseman discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. In addition, Javit teaches:
Wherein the process is implemented locally and/or remotely over the Internet or over an internet network (5) which is connected to the set of Geographical Area Networks and which comprises Application Servers (1) and/or Database Servers (2) and/or FileServers (3) and/or Machine Learning (ML) Recommendation Engine(s) And Machine Learning (ML) Customer and Other Entities Categorization Engine(s) (4) (See at least paragraphs 30, 85, and 86-95 which describe the process being implemented by locally or a remote network, wherein the system includes servers, databases, and user computer devices).
With respect to claim 7, Javit/Wiseman discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. In addition, Javit teaches:
Wherein the process implemented is spread up locally and/or remotely over several networks which are connected between themselves through the Internet and/or one or more internets and connected through the Internet and/or internets to the set of Geographical Area Networks, which comprises Application Servers and/or Database Servers and/or File Servers and/or Machine Learning (ML) Recommendation System Engine(s) And Customer and other Entities Categorization Engine (s) (See at least paragraphs 30, 85, and 86-95 which describe the process being implemented by locally or a remote network, wherein the system includes servers, databases, and user computer devices).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P HARRINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1365. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571)-270-1833. 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.
Michael Harrington
Primary Patent Examiner
3 April 2026
Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights