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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/23/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This is a Non-Final Action for Request for Continued Examination (RCE) application. Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 8, 11-14 and 16-24 have been examined and fully considered.
Claim(s) 1, 12 and 18 are amended.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 8, 11-14 and 16-24 are pending in Instant Application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 02/26/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments/Rejections
Applicant's arguments filed 10/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive regarding the claim rejections 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Per remarks, Applicant states that “claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
101 Applicant has amended the claims to previous claim set. Per remarks, Applicant states “The human mind does not possess the capability to modify "functionality of a vehicle via an electronic control unit." Additionally, the human mind does not possess the capability to modify "a graphical element of a plurality of graphical elements rendered via a vehicle map display associated with routing of the vehicle." For at least this reason, claim 1 does not recite a mental process.”
Applicant respectfully disagrees.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the step directed to step “causing, based on the traffic classification profile for the road segment, at least one of (i) a first modification to a functionality of a vehicle via an electronic control unit of the vehicle or (ii) a second modification to a graphical element of a plurality of graphical elements.” is determined to be an additional element, which merely amounts to post-solution activity.
The amendment uses the generic components, “causing, based on the traffic classification profile for the road segment, at least one of (i) a first modification to a functionality of a vehicle via an electronic control unit of the vehicle or (ii) a second modification to a graphical element of a plurality of graphical elements.”, utilized for implementing said abstract idea (i.e. does not improve the computing technology or the transportation technology, e.g., the operation of automobile, etc.), however, this does not represent an integration of said abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, Examiner maintains the 35 USC § 101 rejection of record.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 8, 11-14 and 16-24 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 based on the following analysis because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without being significantly more.
Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 8, 11-14 and 16-24 are directed to a computer-implemented method (process), and an apparatus, and an computer program product respectively. As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites abstract limitations, including those bolded below:
A computer-implemented method for determining a split lane traffic pattern for a road segment, the computer-implemented method comprising:
aggregating, based on a distribution of speeds associated with location probe points representative of travel of vehicles along the road segment during an interval of time, first traffic data for an upstream road segment of the road segment, wherein the location probe points are captured via one or more location sensors of the vehicles during the travel of the vehicles along the road segment;
aggregating, based on the distribution of speeds associated with the location probe points for the vehicles, second traffic data for a first downstream road segment of the road segment;
aggregating, based on the distribution of speeds associated with the location probe points for the vehicles, third traffic data for a second downstream road segment of the road segment;
determining a traffic classification profile for the road segment based on (i) statistical analysis of the first traffic data, the second traffic data and the third traffic data associated with the location probe points and (ii) a first distance corresponding to a first road segment length of the upstream road segment, a second distance corresponding to a second road segment length of the first downstream road segment, and a third distance corresponding to a third road segment length of the second downstream road segment, wherein the traffic classification profile classifies the road segment with either a first split lane traffic event or a second split lane traffic event, and wherein the first split lane traffic event or the second split lane traffic event is related to a subset portion of the upstream road segment, the first downstream road segment, and the second downstream road segment; and
and
causing, based on the traffic classification profile for the road segment, at least one of (i) a first modification to a functionality of a vehicle via an electronic control unit of the vehicle or (ii) a second modification to a graphical element of a plurality of graphical elements.
Claim 12 recites abstract limitations, including those bolded below:
An apparatus configured to determine a split lane traffic pattern for a road segment, the apparatus comprising processing circuitry and at least one memory including computer program code instructions, the computer program code instructions configured to, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the apparatus to:
aggregate, based on a distribution of speeds associated with location probe points representative of travel of vehicles along the road segment during an interval of time, first traffic data for an upstream road segment of the road segment, wherein the location probe points are captured via one or more location sensors of the vehicles during the travel of the vehicles along the road segment;
aggregate, based on the distribution of speeds associated with the location probe points for the vehicles, second traffic data for a first downstream road segment of the road segment;
aggregate, based on the distribution of speeds associated with the location probe points for the vehicles, third traffic data for a second downstream road segment of the road segment;
determine a traffic classification profile for the road segment based on (i) statistical analysis of the first traffic data, the second traffic data and the third traffic data associated with the location probe points and (ii) a first distance corresponding to a first road segment length of the upstream road segment, a second distance corresponding to a second road segment length of the first downstream road segment, and a third distance corresponding to a third road segment length of the second downstream road segment, wherein the traffic classification profile classifies the road segment with either a first split lane traffic event or a second split lane traffic event, and wherein the first split lane traffic event or the second split lane traffic event is related to a subset portion of the upstream road segment, the first downstream road segment, and the second downstream road segment; and
cause, based on the traffic classification profile for the road segment, at least one of (i) a first modification to a functionality of a vehicle via an electronic control unit of the vehicle or (ii) a second modification to a graphical element of a plurality of graphical elements rendered via a vehicle map display associated with routing of the vehicle.
Claim 18 recites abstract limitations, including those bolded below:
A computer program product comprising at least one non- transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-executable program code instructions stored therein, the computer-executable program code instructions comprising program code instructions to:
aggregate, based on a distribution of speeds associated with location probe points representative of travel of vehicles along the road segment during an interval of time, first traffic data for an upstream road segment of the road segment, wherein the location probe points are captured via one or more location sensors of the vehicles during the travel of the vehicles along the road segment;
aggregate, based on the distribution of speeds associated with the location probe points for the vehicles, second traffic data for a first downstream road segment of the road segment;
aggregate, based on the distribution of speeds associated with the location probe points for the vehicles, third traffic data for a second downstream road segment of the road segment;
determine a traffic classification profile for the road segment based on (i) statistical analysis of the first traffic data, the second traffic data and the third traffic data associated with the location probe points and (ii) a first distance corresponding to a first road segment length of the upstream road segment, a second distance corresponding to a second road segment length of the first downstream road segment, and a third distance corresponding to a third road segment length of the second downstream road segment, wherein the traffic classification profile classifies the road segment with either a first split lane traffic event or a second split lane traffic event, and wherein the first split lane traffic event or the second split lane traffic event is related to a subset portion of the upstream road segment, the first downstream road segment, and the second downstream road segment; and
cause, based on the traffic classification profile for the road segment, at least one of (i) a first modification to a functionality of a vehicle via an electronic control unit of the vehicle or (ii) a second modification to a graphical element of a plurality of graphical elements rendered via a vehicle map display associated with routing of the vehicle.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable
interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes. More specifically, the “aggregating” step encompasses a driver making observation, evaluation or judgement about vehicles with information such position and/or location, speed for downstream and upstream road segments. Furthermore, the “determining” steps, applied to each of the vehicles,
encompasses that same driver making an evaluation, observation or judgment about
which direction each vehicle is oriented according to traffic data. The mere recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a judicial exception in step 2A Prong One , the claim requires further analysis in step 2A Prong Two. In step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of:
A computer-implemented method for determining a split lane traffic pattern for a road segment, the computer-implemented method comprising:
aggregating, based on a distribution of speeds associated with location probe points representative of travel of vehicles along the road segment during an interval of time, first traffic data for an upstream road segment of the road segment, wherein the location probe points are captured via one or more location sensors of the vehicles during the travel of the vehicles along the road segment;
aggregating, based on the distribution of speeds associated with the location probe points for the vehicles, second traffic data for a first downstream road segment of the road segment;
aggregating, based on the distribution of speeds associated with the location probe points for the vehicles, third traffic data for a second downstream road segment of the road segment;
determining a traffic classification profile for the road segment based on (i) statistical analysis of the first traffic data, the second traffic data and the third traffic data associated with the location probe points and (ii) a first distance corresponding to a first road segment length of the upstream road segment, a second distance corresponding to a second road segment length of the first downstream road segment, and a third distance corresponding to a third road segment length of the second downstream road segment, wherein the traffic classification profile classifies the road segment with either a first split lane traffic event or a second split lane traffic event, and wherein the first split lane traffic event or the second split lane traffic event is related to a subset portion of the upstream road segment, the first downstream road segment, and the second downstream road segment; and
causing, based on the traffic classification profile for the road segment, at least one of (i) a first modification to a functionality of a vehicle via an electronic control unit of the vehicle or (ii) a second modification to a graphical element of a plurality of graphical elements.
Claim 12 recites the additional elements of:
An apparatus configured to determine a split lane traffic pattern for a road segment, the apparatus comprising processing circuitry and at least one memory including computer program code instructions, the computer program code instructions configured to, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the apparatus to:
aggregate, based on a distribution of speeds associated with location probe points representative of travel of vehicles along the road segment during an interval of time, first traffic data for an upstream road segment of the road segment, wherein the location probe points are captured via one or more location sensors of the vehicles during the travel of the vehicles along the road segment;
aggregate, based on the distribution of speeds associated with the location probe points for the vehicles, second traffic data for a first downstream road segment of the road segment;
aggregate, based on the distribution of speeds associated with the location probe points for the vehicles, third traffic data for a second downstream road segment of the road segment;
determine a traffic classification profile for the road segment based on (i) statistical analysis of the first traffic data, the second traffic data and the third traffic data associated with the location probe points and (ii) a first distance corresponding to a first road segment length of the upstream road segment, a second distance corresponding to a second road segment length of the first downstream road segment, and a third distance corresponding to a third road segment length of the second downstream road segment, wherein the traffic classification profile classifies the road segment with either a first split lane traffic event or a second split lane traffic event, and wherein the first split lane traffic event or the second split lane traffic event is related to a subset portion of the upstream road segment, the first downstream road segment, and the second downstream road segment; and
cause, based on the traffic classification profile for the road segment, at least one of (i) a first modification to a functionality .
Claim 18 recites the additional elements of:
A computer program product comprising at least one non- transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-executable program code instructions stored therein, the computer-executable program code instructions comprising program code instructions to:
aggregate, based on a distribution of speeds associated with location probe points representative of travel of vehicles along the road segment during an interval of time, first traffic data for an upstream road segment of the road segment, wherein the location probe points are captured via one or more location sensors of the vehicles during the travel of the vehicles along the road segment;
aggregate, based on the distribution of speeds associated with the location probe points for the vehicles, second traffic data for a first downstream road segment of the road segment;
aggregate, based on the distribution of speeds associated with the location probe points for the vehicles, third traffic data for a second downstream road segment of the road segment;
determine a traffic classification profile for the road segment based on (i) statistical analysis of the first traffic data, the second traffic data and the third traffic data associated with the location probe points and (ii) a first distance corresponding to a first road segment length of the upstream road segment, a second distance corresponding to a second road segment length of the first downstream road segment, and a third distance corresponding to a third road segment length of the second downstream road segment, wherein the traffic classification profile classifies the road segment with either a first split lane traffic event or a second split lane traffic event, and wherein the first split lane traffic event or the second split lane traffic event is related to a subset portion of the upstream road segment, the first downstream road segment, and the second downstream road segment; and
cause, based on the traffic classification profile for the road segment, at least one of (i) a first modification to a functionality of a vehicle via an electronic control unit of the vehicle or (ii) a second modification to a graphical element of a plurality of graphical elements rendered via a vehicle map display associated with routing of the vehicle.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
The functions of the “the traffic classification profile” (data processing) and “an electronic control unit” are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the abstract idea. In addition, each of these additional limitations indicate a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding the additional limitations of “causing, based on the traffic classification profile for the road segment, at least one of (i) a first modification to a functionality of a vehicle via an electronic control unit of the vehicle or (ii) a second modification to a graphical element of a plurality of graphical elements” of claim 1, “cause, based on the traffic classification profile for the road segment, at least one of (i) a first modification to a functionality ”, of claim 12 and 18 these limitations mount to post-solution activity (e.g., the provision of information on a display, as described in paragraph [0036] of the specification).
The functions of the sensors (collecting, sending and receiving information) are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity because they are merely generating data. [see MPEP, 2106.04(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity [R-10.2019], (3) Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering, calculating and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering)]
The characterization of the sensor as being of the vehicles during the travel of the vehicles along the road segment amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05).
Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As discussed above, the functions of the “the traffic classification profile” and “an electronic control unit” amount to mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, update, or generate) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional functions of sensors (receiving information) are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the traffic classification is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
The characterization of sensor as being of the vehicles during the travel of the vehicles along the road segment amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, which does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Dependent claim(s) 2-5, 7-8, and 11 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the previously identified judicial exception and/or aforementioned additional elements that were identified as well-understood, routine and conventional in the analysis above. Therefore, dependent claims 2-5, 7-8, and 11 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Dependent claim(s) 13-14, and 16-17 are ineligible under 35 USC §101 for similar reasons as those identified with respect to dependent claims 2-5, and 7-8. Therefore, dependent claims 13-14, and 16-17 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 12.
Dependent claim(s) 19-24 are ineligible under 35 USC §101 for similar reasons as those identified with respect to dependent claims 2-5, and 7-8. Therefore, dependent claims 19-24 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 18.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-5, 7, 8, 11-14 and 16-24 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Possible Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 2-5, 7, 8, 1, 13-14, 16-17 and 19-24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim(s) 1, 12 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 101, however, would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to the independent claims 1, the claim features below are rendered to be novel and non-obvious. In light of the prior art of record, either individually, in combination and/or dependently on other prior art does not teach the claim features
A computer-implemented method for determining a split lane traffic pattern for a road segment, the computer-implemented method comprising:
… wherein the traffic classification profile classifies the road segment with either a first split lane traffic event or a second split lane traffic event, and wherein the first split lane traffic event or the second split lane traffic event is related to a subset portion of the upstream road segment, the first downstream road segment, and the second downstream road segment; and causing at least one of (i)routing of a vehicle via an electronic control unit of the vehicle or ii rendering of data via a map display based on the traffic classification profile for the road segment.
With respect to the independent claims 12, the claim features below are rendered to be novel and non-obvious. In light of the prior art of record, either individually, in combination and/or dependently on other prior art does not teach the claim features.
An apparatus configured to determine a split lane traffic pattern for a road segment, the apparatus comprising processing circuitry and at least one memory including computer program code instructions, the computer program code instructions configured to, when executed by the processing circuity circuitry, cause the apparatus to:
… determine a traffic classification profile for the road segment based on (i) statistical analysis of the first traffic data, the second traffic data and the third traffic data associated with the location probe points and (ii) a first distance corresponding to a first road segment length of the upstream road segment, a second distance corresponding to a second road segment length of the first downstream road segment, and a third distance corresponding to a third road segment length of the second downstream road segment, wherein the traffic classification profile classifies the road segment with either a first split lane traffic event or a second split lane traffic event, and wherein the first split lane traffic event or the second split lane traffic event is related to a subset portion of the upstream road segment, the first downstream road segment, and the second downstream road segment; and cause, based on the traffic classification profile for the road segment, at least one of (i) a first modification to a functionality of a vehicle via an electronic control unit of the vehicle or (ii) a second modification to a graphical element of a plurality of graphical elements rendered via a vehicle map display associated with routing of the vehicle.
With respect to the independent claim 18, the claim features below are rendered to be novel and non-obvious. In light of the prior art of record, either individually, in combination and/or dependently on other prior art does not teach the claim features.
A computer program product comprising at least one non- transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-executable program code instructions stored therein, the computer-executable program code instructions comprising program code instructions to:
determine a traffic classification profile for the road segment based on (i) statistical analysis of the first traffic data, the second traffic data and the third traffic data associated with the location probe points and (ii) a first distance corresponding to a first road segment length of the upstream road segment, a second distance corresponding to a second road segment length of the first downstream road segment, and a third distance corresponding to a third road segment length of the second downstream road segment, wherein the traffic classification profile classifies the road segment with either a first split lane traffic event or a second split lane traffic event, and wherein the first split lane traffic event or the second split lane traffic event is related to a subset portion of the upstream road segment, the first downstream road segment, and the second downstream road segment; and cause, based on the traffic classification profile for the road segment, at least one of (i) a first modification to a functionality of a vehicle via an electronic control unit of the vehicle or (ii) a second modification to a graphical element of a plurality of graphical elements rendered via a vehicle map display associated with routing of the vehicle.
While the aforementioned references disclose each of the elements of the invention, the combination of references does not fully capture the structure and interplay of the elements as recited in the claims. Therefore, upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the evidence obtained and made of record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious all the features of applicant’s invention as the features amount to more than a predictable use of elements in the prior art.
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 BAKARI UNDERWOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-8462. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 TO 4:30.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached on (571) 272-9855. 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.
/B.U./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/JAMES M MCPHERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3663