DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 7/20/2026.
Claims 1, 3, 11, 13, and 20 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Double Patenting
The terminal disclaimer filed on 7/17/2026 obviates the previous double patenting rejections; therefore, these rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments regarding subject matter eligibility are persuasive; therefore, these rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 103 analysis have been considered and are unpersuasive.
Applicant presents several arguments against the Rjeili reference’s disclosure of the limitation “use a plurality of location modules, coupled to the processor and employing a plurality of location determination techniques to avoid or mitigate a limitation of a particular location determination technique in the plurality of location determination techniques, to determine that a location of the computing device corresponds to a physical location” of the independent claims (Applicant’s emphasis, which is relevant to the arguments addressed below). Each of these arguments is flawed and unpersuasive.
Applicant first references the emphasized language of the limitation above, asserting that this language “is a substantive functional requirement” and “[i]t requires not merely that more than one location determination technique exist, but that a plurality of techniques be employed for the purpose, and with the effect, of avoiding or mitigating a limitation of a particular one of those techniques.” These assertions are in part true and in part untrue. While it is accurate that any reference cited against this language must employ multiple location determination techniques, and that the effect of employing multiple such techniques be the avoidance or mitigation of a limitation of one such location determination technique, the claims even as presently amended do not require that multiple location determination techniques be employed specifically for the purpose of such avoidance or mitigation. This argued purpose is intended use/result, which has long been judicially recognized as lacking in patentable weight (see, e.g., MPEP 2111.04). As such, the purported difference in purpose does not create a patentable distinction.
Next, Applicant argues that the cited passages of Rjeili disclose a variety of location-determination techniques, but “expressly in the alternative.” This is untrue. For Example, in Paragraph 0005 thereof (explicitly listed in the previous citation against this limitation), Rjeili states that “[a] mobile computing device may use, for instance, near field communication tags, a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver, Bluetooth, WiFi or other location beacons, device cameras, scanners, and/or other techniques to determine that the device is proximate to a physical location, such as a conference room or office, an object or device, such as printer, projector, or other device, or an employee or other person associated with an enterprise system” (Examiner’s emphasis). The use of potentially multiple of such location determination techniques is further borne out in at least Paragraph 0102, also explicitly listed in the previous citation against this limitation. That the subsequent, more in-depth descriptions of each of these listed techniques are described “as a self-standing way to establish location” as argued does not refute that Paragraph 0005 explicitly sets forth that either one or multiple such techniques may be employed to determine such proximity. This is not merely a “menu of interchangeable alternatives” as argued by Applicant.
Further, as these location determination techniques of Rjeili include those examples given in Applicant’s own specification (see Paragraphs 0106-0109) as both techniques with particular shortcomings (e.g., lack of accuracy in certain situations; susceptibility to spoofing) as well as techniques which may be employed to avoid such shortcomings (e.g., scanning a location target/image capture of a portion of an environment), Rjeili discloses embodiments thereof having the claimed effect of avoiding or mitigating such shortcomings. Indeed, as embodiments combining such techniques would do so in the same manner as set forth in Applicant’s own specification, this line of argument is particularly puzzling to Examiner.
While Applicant’s overall argument is already refuted above, regarding Applicant’s anticipatory arguments regarding Paragraphs 0151, 0162-0164 and 0170, the distinction Applicant attempts to draw here does not differentiate Rjeili from the present invention in the manner Applicant seemingly believes. While it is true that these passages discuss utilization of GPS data to identify individuals or objects in also-captured image data, Applicant seemingly forgets the entire purpose, context, and use of the location determination techniques of Rjeili: to determine the location of the user device, in some instances based on its proximity/co-location of the objects in question in these passages. The object is identified specifically because it is present in an image captured by the user device, therefore also determining that the user device is present at the location of such objects. This combination of GPS and image capture/recognition techniques absolutely avoids or mitigates such a shortcoming, and Applicant’s own noted example pulled from these passages illustrates this: in the argued Paragraph 0151, in an instance where a user device utilizes the image capture-based location determination technique, but the results of this technique are not dispositive (in this instance, because the printer captured in the image lacks a legible printer name or identifier), GPS data is used to supplement this imaging technique to identify this printer despite its lack of legible printer name/identifier, and thereby determine the location of the user device which took this picture. Again, see the language of Paragraph 0005 quoted above, which is reinforced throughout Rjeili (including in the very title thereof): “[a] mobile computing device may use, for instance, near field communication tags, a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver, Bluetooth, WiFi or other location beacons, device cameras, scanners, and/or other techniques to determine that the device is proximate to a physical location, such as a conference room or office, an object or device, such as printer, projector, or other device, or an employee or other person associated with an enterprise system” (Examiner’s emphasis). Applicant’s assertions that these distinct GPS and image capture techniques are “different operation[s]” directed to a different problem” is not in keeping with the disclosure of Rjeili, and Applicant is encouraged to review references in greater detail to properly understand them and avoid such inaccurate assertions in the future.
Regarding this same argued feature, Examiner makes an additional observation. An additional reference is already on record regarding this feature as claimed in Parent Application 16257788 (the Sogabe reference, which was combined with the primary Rjeili reference to disclose this feature in rejections of said Parent Application). While further review of Rjeili (including the cited passage above) has rendered this combination unnecessary to disclose this feature and the effects thereof, even if Applicant’s arguments here were correct (which, to be clear, they are not), there is already art on record which would nonetheless render the claims as presently amended obvious. As per both the primary Rjeili reference in isolation and other art already on record, Applicant’s focus on this feature will not result in non-obvious subject matter under the standards of 103.
Applicant also presents arguments regarding the presently amended language “an appointment for acceptance of a promotion available at and identified based on the physical location.” So far as Examiner understands these arguments, they are based on an unreasonably narrow and obtuse reading of the Richter reference, not in keeping with what one of ordinary skill in the art would understand Richter to disclose. The restaurant-specific (ie: “available at and identified based on the physical location” as claimed) promotions of Paragraph 0133 (and Examiner notes that the listed “specialties during a particular time frame” would also read upon the claimed promotion) are provided to a user device. As would readily be understood by any layperson reading this application, much less one of ordinary skill in the art, are provided as advertisements meant to induce a user into making a booking/reservation (or an “appointment,” as claimed). Such appointments (or, at least, options for such appointments), as Applicant admits in these arguments, would constitute the “offers” of also-cited Paragraph 0138. One of ordinary skill in the art would certainly understand the booking of such an appointment, at least in embodiments where the booking was induced by the advertised specials and promotions, would clearly be for the acceptance of these advertised specials/promotions. This, combined with Rjeili as in the previous and presently updated 103 rejections, discloses the limitation in question.
Examiner further notes that Applicant’s arguments to this effect appear to improperly address Richter and Rjeili each in isolation, rather than combined as cited in the 103 rejections themselves. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references (see In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986)).
Applicant also presents arguments against the previously cited and presently maintained combination of Rjeili and Richter, particularly arguing that the rejection “supplies no articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the proposed combination.” Despite the verbosity of these arguments, they contain no more than conclusory and untrue assertions. For example, Applicant quotes the identified rationale of “merely applies a known technique to a known device/method/product ready for improvement to yield predictable results” in isolation, ignoring all supporting statements and the content of the rejections themselves, and makes the conclusory assertion that “[t]his recitation does not identify why a person of ordinary skill designing Rjeili’s enterprise mobile-workspace and resource-reservation system would look to Richter’s customer restaurant ticket-resale marketplace, nor how the asserted combination would yield the claimed appointment for acceptance of a promotion.”
Regarding how the combination would yield the claimed promotion, which Examiner notes relates to the disclosure of the references in combination (e.g., as addressed in relation to the arguments above) rather than the rationale to combine which is a separate requirement, Examiner notes that this is explained in the language of the rejection itself, explaining which elements of Richter are used to modify which functionalities of Rjeili. This explanation is further expanded in response to the argument above, though Examiner maintains that the manner of combination to reach the claimed language is perfectly comprehensible from the language of the rejection itself.
Regarding “why a person of ordinary skill designing Rjeili’s enterprise mobile-workspace and resource-reservation system would look to Richter’s customer restaurant ticket-resale marketplace,” Examiner notes that this argument misapprehends the standards for combined references under 103, as the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art is not considered as a person designing one reference or the other. Regarding the actual question which should have been asked, namely “why the difference(s) between the prior art and the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art” (see MPEP 2141), Examiner notes that the provided rationale and supporting statements comport with one of the rationales explicitly listed in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) as well as the factual determinations necessary for this particular rationale as listed in MPEP 2143(I)(D). Nothing in Applicant’s arguments here speaks to any of these standards, nor illustrates a discrepancy between the content of the rejections and these requirements.
The only nominal support this assertion by referencing the separate arguments against Richter above, though this again misapprehends the distinction between what a combination of references discloses and a rationale to make such a combination. As those arguments are unpersuasive as explained above, they do nothing to support the notion that the combination has no rational underpinning. Further, Applicant’s unreasonably reductive description of Richter as “any location-aware system with any reference mentioning a promotion” (as well as the previously reductive description of Richter as merely a “ticket-resale marketplace”) entirely ignores both the manner in which these references are combined as well as ignoring that even this reductive description identifies how closely related the inventions of these references in fact are: both relate to systems and methods for location-based appointment making, which not only establishes them as analogous art but gives a perfectly logical reason why one would look to one of these references to modify the other (though, to be clear, this is not the rationale relied upon by Examiner – he maintains his previous rationale).
Claim Interpretation
Each of independent Claims 1, 11, and 20 contain a variation on the limitation “use a plurality of location modules, coupled to the processor and employing a plurality of location determination techniques to avoid or mitigate a limitation of a particular location determination technique in the plurality of location determination techniques, to determine that a location of the computing device corresponds to a physical location.” While the newly claimed term “location modules” is a generic placeholder/nonce term, this term is not interpreted under 112(f) as the language “coupled to the processor” constitutes modification by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function associated with these modules (see, e.g., MPEP 2181). For clarity, in view of the original disclosure, these location modules are interpreted as software executed by the claimed processor. This is further borne out in Claim 1 by the limitation immediately preceding the above-quoted limitation: “a memory coupled to the processor and storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to: …”
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, 10-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rjeili et al (PGPub 20140344420) (hereafter, “Rjeili”) in view of Richter et al (PGPub 20160196508) (hereafter, “Richter”).
Regarding Claims 1, 11, and 20, Rjeili discloses:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions executable by a processor (¶ 0034-0037; Fig. 2; software may be stored within memory and/or other storage to provide instructions to processor to perform various functions);
a computing device (Abstract; ¶ 0035-0037; Fig. 2; mobile device);
a processor (¶ 0035-0037; Fig. 2; processor);
a communications module coupled to the processor (¶ 0035-0037; Fig. 2; network interface);
a memory coupled to the processor and storing instructions executable by the processor (¶ 00335-0037; Fig. 2; software may be stored within memory and/or other storage to provide instructions to processor to perform various functions);
use a plurality of location modules, coupled to the processor and employing a plurality of location determination techniques to avoid or mitigate a limitation of a particular location determination technique in the plurality of location determination techniques, to determine that a location of the computing device corresponds to a physical location (Abstract; ¶ 0005, 0102-103, 0125, 0150-0154, 0162-0165, 0170; Fig. 14; mobile device location determined via techniques including GPS and a location of an identified object; mobile device determines that the device is proximate to a location such as a conference room via taking a picture of a tag, barcode, or placard of a conference room to request associated information; a recognized barcode containing location data constitutes a digital signature confirming its usability by the system; mobile device location is determined based on the identified object; such techniques include multiple modules, e.g., camera, GPS, communication, storage); and
send an indication to initiate an action in relation to the appointment (¶ 0154-0155, 0159, 0167, 0170; Fig. 14; system controls an object such as a conference room in response to a command from the mobile device).
Rjeili additionally discloses responsive to the determination that the location of the computing device corresponds to the physical location, receive input indicating a selected time for an appointment (¶ 0154-0155, 0158-0159, 0167, 0170; Figs. 13-14; user may access the features and functionalities of the conference room, including reserving a location and/or scheduling a meeting; higher level employees may have access to schedule and request additional equipment for the conference room). Rjeili does not explicitly disclose but Richter does disclose wherein the appointment is for acceptance of a promotion available at and identified based on the physical location (¶ 0133, 0138; the restaurant profile may include different information to provide the users (e.g., type of food, name of chef, specialties during a particular time frame, and/or any promotions); the host server may transmit the offers to the client computing device of the first user via push-notification (e.g., dashboard message with a status of offer available)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include the appointment scheduling-based promotion functionalities of Richter with the resource reservation system of Rjeili because the combination merely applies a known technique to a known device/method/product ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007) and MPEP 2143). The known techniques of Richter are applicable to the base device (Rjeili), the technical ability existed to improve the base device in the same way, and the results of the combination are predictable because the function of each piece (as well as the problems in the art which they address) are unchanged when combined.
Regarding Claims 2 and 12, Rjeili in view of Richter discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 11. Rjeili additionally discloses wherein the particular location determination technique in the plurality of location determination techniques is employed by a location module that interacts with a receiver of one or more satellite-based location systems (Abstract; ¶ 0005, 0102-103, 0125, 0150-0154, 0162-0165, 0170; Fig. 14; mobile device location determined via techniques including GPS and a location of an identified object; a mobile computing device may use a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver to determine that the device is proximate to a physical location).
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, Rjeili in view of Richter discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 11. Rjeili additionally discloses wherein the plurality of location modules includes an image capture module, and the particular location determination technique in the plurality of location determination techniques is employed by the image capture module (Abstract; ¶ 0005, 0102-103, 0125, 0150-0154, 0162-0165, 0170; Fig. 14; mobile device location determined via techniques including GPS and a location of an identified object; mobile device determines that the device is proximate to a location such as a conference room via taking a picture of a tag, barcode, or placard of a conference room to request associated information; a recognized barcode containing location data constitutes a digital signature confirming its usability by the system; mobile device location is determined based on the identified object).
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, Rjeili in view of Richter discloses the limitations of Claims 3 and 13. Rjeili additionally discloses:
capture, using the image capture module, an image of a portion of an environment in which the computing device is located (¶ 0005, 0102-0103, 0150-0151, 0162-0163, 0170; Fig. 14; mobile device takes a picture of a tag, barcode, or placard of a conference room to request associated information); and
detect that the captured image includes a particular physical object expected in the physical location (¶ 0150-0154, 0164, 0170; captured image is analyzed to detect objects therein, such as a conference room placard, a printer label having a printer network name, etc.; mobile device location is determined based on the identified object).
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, Rjeili in view of Richter discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 11. Rjeili additionally discloses wherein the determination that the location of the computing device corresponds to the physical location is based on use of a digital signature encoded in a target corresponding to the physical location to confirm the target is genuine (Abstract; ¶ 0005, 0102-103, 0125, 0150-0154, 0162-0165, 0170; Fig. 14; mobile device location determined via techniques including GPS and a location of an identified object; mobile device determines that the device is proximate to a location such as a conference room via taking a picture of a tag, barcode, or placard of a conference room to request associated information; a recognized barcode containing location data constitutes a digital signature confirming its usability by the system; mobile device location is determined based on the identified object).
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, Rjeili in view of Richter discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 11. Rjeili additionally discloses wherein the action includes a request to book the appointment at the selected time (¶ 0154-0155, 0158-0159, 0167, 0170; Figs. 13-14; access the room meeting and vacancy schedule; user may access the features and functionalities of the conference room, including reserving a location and/or scheduling a meeting; higher level employees may have access to schedule and request additional equipment for the conference room).
Regarding Claim 10, Rjeili in view of Richter discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Rjeili additionally discloses wherein the appointment for acceptance of the promotion is an appointment with a person (¶ 0106, 0150-0155; the client agent may be configured to access the user's calendar and/or scheduling data to determine the type or purpose of the meeting (e.g., an accounting meeting, a production meeting, a human resources meeting, etc.) and may select a context based on the specific meeting type and/or the identities of other meeting participants; the employee information may be presented to the user on the mobile device along with various related functionality, such as an option to add the employee to the user's contacts, call the employee, send an email to the employee, schedule the employee for a meeting, invite the employee to join a meeting or collaborative work session, and the like).
Claims 7-9 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rjeili in view of Richter and Holmes et al (PGPub 20170357917) (hereafter, “Holmes”).
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, Rjeili in view of Richter discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 11. Rjeili does not explicitly disclose but Holmes does disclose wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the computing device to, responsive to the determination that the location of the computing device corresponds to the physical location, present, via an output module, an option to schedule the appointment at a location alternative to the physical location (¶ 0011-0012, 0202-0205, 0215, 0218, 0245-0249, 0262, 0290-0293, 0424-0428, 0611, 0703; Figs. 5A, 6C-6V, 6T, 7M, 7X-7Y, 15A; user device displays locations and schedules of available rooms; the list of available meeting spaces is sorted based at least in part on proximity to the location of the device; interface includes a claiming affordance, which, when activated, causes the status indicator to change (e.g., change from available to meeting in progress); the interface of Fig. 6V illustrates user selection of an alternative location and an option to reserve (or "takeover")).
The rationale to combine Rjeili and Richter remains the same as for Claim 1. It would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include the check-in functionality of Holmes with the resource reservation system of Rjeili and Richter because the combination merely applies a known technique to a known device/method/product ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007) and MPEP 2143). The known techniques of Holmes are applicable to the base device (Rjeili and Richter), the technical ability existed to improve the base device in the same way, and the results of the combination are predictable because the function of each piece (as well as the problems in the art which they address) are unchanged when combined.
Regarding Claims 8 and 18, Rjeili in view of Richter discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 11. Rjeili does not explicitly disclose but Holmes does disclose wherein the instructions further cause the computing device to receive one or more appointment locations alternative to the physical location and identified based on the physical location (¶ 0202-0205, 0215, 0218, 0262, 0290-0293, 0424-0428, 0611, 0703; Figs. 5A, 6C, 6T, 7M, 7X-7Y, 15A; user device displays locations and schedules of available rooms; list of available spaces may be filtered based on user inputs, e.g., a number of participants).
The rationale to combine remains the same as for Claim 7.
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, Rjeili in view of Richter discloses the limitations of Claims 8 and 18. Rjeili does not explicitly disclose but Holmes does disclose wherein the one or more appointment locations alternative to the physical location have capacity at the selected time (¶ 0202-0205, 0215, 0218, 0262, 0290-0293, 0424-0428, 0611, 0703, 0773-0782; Figs. 5A, 6C, 6T, 7M, 7X-7Y, 15A, 28A-28M; user device displays locations and schedules of available rooms; list of available spaces may be filtered based on user inputs, e.g., a number of participants).
The rationale to combine remains the same as for Claim 7.
Discussion of Prior Art Cited but Not Applied
For additional information on the state of the art regarding the claims of the present application, please see the following documents not applied in this Office Action (all of which are prior art to the present application):
PGPub 20190012614 – “Information Processing Apparatus, Resource Reservation System, and Information Transmission Method,” Yamada et al, disclosing a conference room reservation system with check-in functionality
PGPub 20150039357 – “Systems and Methods for Providing On Demand Business Resources,” Segal et al, disclosing a system for searching and reserving business resources including conference rooms
Context-Aware Recommendations in the Mobile Tourist Application COMPASS, van Setten et al (2004), which describes functionality of software which runs on a mobile device, said functionality including contextual recommendations to the user of the mobile device
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 MARK C CLARE whose telephone number is (571)272-8748. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30am-2:30pm 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.
/MARK C CLARE/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights