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 .
PROSECUTION REOPENED
In view of the Appeal Brief filed on 9/15/25, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new ground of rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/FLORIAN M ZEENDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Claim Interpretation
Based upon Applicant’s remarks in response to the previous new matter objection, “at a future time” as recited in Claim 1 is deemed to be within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art and therefore admitted prior art. Applicant argues that the common dictionary definition of “will” as in “will board the transit vehicle” would be obvious and well-known to mean “at a future time”. As such, “at a future time” is deemed to be admitted as obvious and fails to further limit the claim language beyond that which is disclosed in the prior art, (see Remarks 5/13/24, page 7).
Based upon Applicant’s remarks in response to the previous 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection, the “determined location of the transit vehicle” in claim 1, is interpreted as being determined from stored data, not real-time sensor data like the location of a mobile device. The user’s mobile device location is determined using real-time sensor data which is then compared with the stored transit system data previously received by the ordering system, i.e. via a push notification from the transit system. For example, “Therefore, the ordering system determines the locations and speeds of the transit vehicle from, for example, the obtained transit data that may be stored in database 120 of ordering system 104.”, (see Remarks 5/13/24, page 11). Applicant’s arguments clarify that the determination is made after comparing the current location of the user with stored transit information such as historical data associated with previous travel trips, (See Remarks 5/13/24, page 9).
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) 1-20 is/are directed to statutory computer-readable mediums under Step 1 of the eligibility analysis. However, the claims are further directed toward a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility analysis, namely an abstract idea. Under Step 2A Prong Two of the eligibility analysis, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements to integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, the claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because nothing in the asserted claims purports to improve the functioning of the computer itself or effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of (1) a location of a mobile device operated by the customer, at a plurality of different first times, is determined to substantially corresponds to a determined location of the transit vehicle confirming that the customer has boarded the transit vehicle, (2) a movement speed of the mobile device, at a plurality of different second times, is determined to be substantially equal to a rate of travel of the transit vehicle confirming that the customer has boarded the transit vehicle. This is “organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula. 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1721”, (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A)(iv)). Here the determination of weather the coordinates and/or speed of the mobile device and transit vehicle are substantially equal is a mathematical correlation and an abstract idea.
The claim(s) is/are also directed to the abstract idea of (3) customer input is received, at a user interface of the mobile device, indicating that the customer has boarded or will board the transit vehicle at a future time. This is a mental process (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) similar to collecting and comparing known information, which is an abstract idea, (see Classen Immunotherapies Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). It is also similar to collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, (see Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). “Here, the claims are clearly focused on the combination of those abstract-idea processes. The advance they purport to make is a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, and not any particular assertedly inventive technology for performing those functions. They are therefore directed to an abstract idea”, (see Electric Power Group). The claims recite a customer using a mobile device to send a message indicating that the customer holding the mobile device has boarded a transit vehicle, thus indicating that they are “on the way” so to speak. This is considered to be a mental process similar to calling someone from a taxi cab.
The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se, i.e. processor, memory, vendor device, mobile device, order placement software, etc., amount(s) to no more than implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer system, (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(1)) . Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea, (See 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception: “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983.”)
Other examples where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome include: Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017). This is similar to the claimed invention wherein a mobile device is used to communicate with a vendor device to communicate current mobile device location data for comparison with previously stored transit data. Like Intellectual Ventures, here there is no description of how the vendor device retrieves the previously stored transit data.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,227,347 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims at issue are broader and/or substantially similar to the claims of the issued patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haynes et al., WO 2016/166708 A1, in view of Bodin et al., U.S. 2005/0096811 A1.
1. (Currently Amended) A system, comprising:
a vendor device, (see Haynes, ¶ 171(food truck vendor), including a processor and a memory, (see Haynes, ¶ 306), the vendor device configured to (1) receive a customer order including one or more items, (see Haynes, ¶ 282-84)(pizza), and (2) execute order placement software, wherein the order placement software is configured to place the customer order at a particular position within an order queue based on at least the anticipated time of arrival of the customer, (see Haynes, ¶ 38)(intelligent order queueing information can include information that takes into account estimated times of arrival for customers, such as customers who will be picking-up the food at a provider's location, as well as the time for fulfilling items included in food orders).
Haynes fails to disclose the following limitations taught by reference to Bodin:
wherein the anticipated time of arrival of the customer is determined utilizing transit data, (see Bodin, ¶ 77)( two successive GPS measurements can be made, which can be used to calculate vehicle direction and velocity, which can also be included in the DTC and used by the opportunity in conjunction with a digital map to determine upcoming towns on the vehicle's path. An estimated time of arrival can also be either calculated using this information, or provided directly by the vehicle operator), associated with a transit vehicle, (see Bodin, ¶ 6)(automated and preemptive service determination, brokering and scheduling for moving systems such as automobiles, trains, trucks, ships, and aircraft), on which the customer has boarded or will board, (See Bodin, ¶ 30)(“in a mobile system and upon the system's location and direction of travel, one or more potential geographic points of service, preferably within the scheduled itinerary of travel, is determined”). A scheduled itinerary is considered to include transit that a customer “has boarded or will board” at a future time as planned and the “transit vehicle” is the automobile the customer is traveling in and/or with to be repaired, when:
(1) a location of a mobile device operated by the customer, (see Bodin, ¶ 35)(Location Based Sevices “LBS”), at a plurality of first times, (see Bodin, ¶ 43)(A mobile system…initially is a location or position p.sub.0 at an initial time t.sub.0), is determined to substantially corresponds to a determined location of the transit vehicle, confirming that the customer has boarded the transit vehicle, (see Bodin,¶ 69)(the opportunity server proceeds to check the user's profile and the provider profiles (18, 19) which are in the area of the next expected point of service (e.g. next or closest town, port, airport, etc.). Then, the DTC's are processed (45) to create requests for bids for the needed service repair, and are transmitted via the computer network to one or more provider servers). The service provider servers are considered to be a “vendor” device as claimed. The presentation of an offer to the customer that corresponds to their itinerary is considered to be a form of “confirming” as claimed.
(2) a movement speed of the mobile device, (see Bodin, claim 18: “conditions of said mobile system selected from the group of location of the mobile system, direction and speed of travel of the mobile system”) at a plurality of different second times, (see Bodin, ¶ 54)(“mobile system arrives at the anticipated location p.sub.2 on or about the anticipated time of arrival t.sub.2”), is determined to be substantially equal to a rate of travel of the transit vehicle confirming that the customer has boarded the transit vehicle, (see Bodin, ¶ 77)( two successive GPS measurements can be made, which can be used to calculate vehicle direction and velocity, which can also be included in the DTC and used by the opportunity in conjunction with a digital map to determine upcoming towns on the vehicle's path. An estimated time of arrival can also be either calculated using this information, or provided directly by the vehicle operator), or
(3) input is received at a user interface of the mobile device indicating that the customer has boarded or will board the transit vehicle at a future time, (See Bodin, ¶ 72)(The user can then accept an offer (400), such as by making a verbal election or touching an icon on a touchscreen, which results in the selection being transmitted to the opportunity server, which in turn performs a confirmation transaction (400) with the winning provider server.). In this case the user touching an icon on a screen and accepting a service offer is considered to be a form of declaring that the customer has boarded or will board the “transit vehicle”, i.e. the automobile the customer is traveling in and/or with to be repaired. A time and place for service is then scheduled according to the customer’s anticipated time of arrival.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the features of Alder and Morris because of the following findings of fact:
F. Known Work in One Field of Endeavor May Prompt Variations of It for Use in Either the Same Field or a Different One Based on Design Incentives or Other Market Forces if the Variations Are Predictable to One of Ordinary Skill in the Art
(1) the scope and content of the prior art in the same field of endeavor as that of the applicant’s invention include a similar or analogous device (method, or product), i.e. H04W 4/027, using movement velocity, acceleration information;
(2) there were design incentives or market forces which would have prompted adaptation of the known device (method, or product), (see Bodin, ¶ 81 “allows an operator of a mobile system or vehicle to effectively schedule and negotiate for service actions while in transit, with minimized delay and perturbation to a desired itinerary or schedule”);
(3) the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art were encompassed in known variations or in a principle known in the prior art;
(4) one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the identified design incentives or other market forces, could have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art, and the claimed variation would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
This motivation is applied to all claims below by reference.
9. A method, comprising:
receiving, at a vendor device, (see Haynes, ¶ 171(food truck vendor) including a processor and a memory, (see Haynes, ¶ 306), a customer order including one or more items, (see Haynes, ¶ 282-84)(pizza); and
placing, by order placement software executing on the vendor device, the customer order at a particular position within an order queue, based on at least the anticipated time of arrival of the customer, (see Haynes, ¶ 38)(intelligent order queueing information can include information that takes into account estimated times of arrival for customers, such as customers who will be picking-up the food at a provider's location, as well as the time for fulfilling items included in food orders),
Haynes fails to disclose the following limitations taught by reference to Bodin:
wherein the anticipated time of arrival of the customer is determined utilizing transit data, (see Bodin, ¶ 77)( two successive GPS measurements can be made, which can be used to calculate vehicle direction and velocity, which can also be included in the DTC and used by the opportunity in conjunction with a digital map to determine upcoming towns on the vehicle's path. An estimated time of arrival can also be either calculated using this information, or provided directly by the vehicle operator), associated with a transit vehicle, (see Bodin, ¶ 6)(automated and preemptive service determination, brokering and scheduling for moving systems such as automobiles, trains, trucks, ships, and aircraft), on which the customer has boarded or will board, (See Bodin, ¶ 30)(“in a mobile system and upon the system's location and direction of travel, one or more potential geographic points of service, preferably within the scheduled itinerary of travel, is determined”). A scheduled itinerary is considered to include transit that a customer “has boarded or will board” at a future time as planned, when
(1) a location of a mobile device operated by the customer, (see Bodin, ¶ 35)(Location Based Sevices “LBS”), at a plurality of first times, (see Bodin, ¶ 43)(A mobile system…initially is a location or position p.sub.0 at an initial time t.sub.0), is determined to substantially corresponds to a determined location of the transit vehicle, confirming that the customer has boarded the transit vehicle, (see Bodin,¶ 69)(the opportunity server proceeds to check the user's profile and the provider profiles (18, 19) which are in the area of the next expected point of service (e.g. next or closest town, port, airport, etc.). Then, the DTC's are processed (45) to create requests for bids for the needed service repair, and are transmitted via the computer network to one or more provider servers). The service provider servers are considered to be a “vendor” device as claimed. The presentation of an offer to the customer that corresponds to their itinerary is considered to be a form of “confirming” as claimed.
(2) a movement speed of the mobile device, (see Bodin, claim 18: “wherein said opportunity server further comprises a set of user profiles and a set of provider profiles, and a profile analyzer for selecting one or more providers to receive requests for bids according to provider profiles matching preferences specified in said user profiles, and conditions of said mobile system selected from the group of location of the mobile system, direction and speed of travel of the mobile system, and make-and-model of the mobile system.”) at a plurality of different first times, (see Bodin, ¶ 54)(“mobile system arrives at the anticipated location p.sub.2 on or about the anticipated time of arrival t.sub.2”), is determined to be substantially equal to a rate of travel of the transit vehicle confirming that the customer has boarded the transit vehicle, (see Bodin, ¶ 77)( two successive GPS measurements can be made, which can be used to calculate vehicle direction and velocity, which can also be included in the DTC and used by the opportunity in conjunction with a digital map to determine upcoming towns on the vehicle's path. An estimated time of arrival can also be either calculated using this information, or provided directly by the vehicle operator), or
(3) customer input is received at a user interface of the mobile device indicating that the customer has boarded or will board the transit vehicle at a future time, (See Bodin, ¶ 72)(The user can then accept an offer (400), such as by making a verbal election or touching an icon on a touchscreen, which results in the selection being transmitted to the opportunity server, which in turn performs a confirmation transaction (400) with the winning provider server.).
10. The method of claim 9, further comprising placing, by the order placement software, the customer order at the particular position within the order queue based on the anticipated time of arrival of the customer and a fulfillment time of the order, (see Haynes, ¶ 92)(coffee pickup time moved from 9AM to 9:10AM based upon estimated arrival time).
11. The method of claim 9, wherein the transit data indicates at least times when a transit vehicle is scheduled to stop at one or more predetermined stops along a route of the transit vehicle and rate of travel information for the transit vehicle, (see Haynes, ¶ 40)(The estimated time of arrival can be determined further based on the one or more transit delays).
12. The method of claim 11, wherein the transit data further includes a delay time indicating an amount of time the transit vehicle is delayed in arriving at a particular predetermined stop along the route, (see Haynes, ¶ 40)(The estimated time of arrival can be determined further based on the one or more transit delays).
13. The method of claim 9, wherein sensor data from the mobile device is utilized to (1) determine the location of the mobile device, or (2) the movement speed of the mobile device, (see Haynes, ¶ 92)(the location of the user's device indicates that the user 112 is traveling slower than expected).
14. The method of claim 9, wherein the anticipated time of arrival is based on the transit data and a distance between a particular predetermined stop along a route of the transit vehicle and a vendor associated with the vendor device, (see Haynes, ¶ 92)(coffee pickup time moved from 9AM to 9:10AM based upon estimated arrival time) (see Haynes, ¶ 209)(The provider identification component 824 can initially identify providers based on the travel patterns for the user by identifying providers that are located within a threshold distance of one or more of: the current location of the mobile computing device 802, a starting location for the mobile computing device 802, a destination location for the mobile computing device 802, and locations along one or more routes from the starting location to the destination location.).
15. The method of claim 9, further comprising changing, by the order placement software, the position of the order within the order queue based on update transit data indicating that that transit vehicle is delayed along a route or indicating that the transit vehicle is to arrive at a particular predetermined stop earlier than scheduled, (see Haynes, ¶ 92)(coffee pickup time moved from 9AM to 9:10AM based upon estimated arrival time) (see Haynes, ¶ 213)(In some implementations, the order prediction module 826 can override and/or modify a ranking of candidate orders based on confidence values/scores. For example, the order prediction module 826 may override/modify the rankings when there is a strong correlations between one or more details of a candidate order and a current context for the mobile computing device 802, such as the mobile computing device 802 being located at a particular location. For instance, the order prediction module 826 can select a candidate order based on the current location of the mobile computing device 802 being a particular location that has a high correlation with a particular provider and/or a particular item).
16. The method of claim 9, wherein the transit vehicle is one of a bus-line, a train-line, a shuttle line, a subway, or an air transportation vehicle, (see Haynes, ¶ 229-30)(The computer system 1104 can augment the base travel time based on events that are occurring along the route 1112 that may affect, positively or negatively, the travel time along the route 1112, such as traffic delays, light traffic conditions, weather delays, and/or mass transit (e.g., bus, subway) delays.).
As per claims 2-8 and 17-20, these claims contain the same or similar features as claims 1, 9-16 rejected above, and therefore the above rejections are applied against the remaining claims herein by reference.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argues that Bodin fails to disclose “(2) a movement speed of the mobile device, at a plurality of different first times, is determined to be substantially equal to a rate of travel of the transit vehicle confirming that the customer has boarded the transit vehicle. Bodin, Claim 18 provides: “The system as set forth in claim 12 wherein said opportunity server further comprises a set of user profiles and a set of provider profiles, and a profile analyzer for selecting one or more providers to receive requests for bids according to provider profiles matching preferences specified in said user profiles, and conditions of said mobile system selected from the group of location of the mobile system, direction and speed of travel of the mobile system, and make-and-model of the mobile system.(emphasis added)” The user and provider profile data in Bodin is the same as the claimed rate of travel and other transit data because both are simply stored data. The claims recite no manner of recording the transit speed data. What is recorded is the mobile device speed data. Bodin further discloses movement speed of the mobile device data in the form of conditions of said mobile system selected from the group of location of the mobile system, direction and speed of travel of the mobile system. Like the claimed invention, the mobile device speed data is then compared with the stored data for determination. Applicant argues the there is no mention of determining a substantial correspondence of the vehicle location data with the location of a mobile device. This is inaccurate because the vehicle location data is stored data which has been previously entered, similar to the profile data in Bodin. In response to applicant's argument that Bodin is for vehicle service and the claims at issue are for ordering items such as food from a vendor, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The auto service features described in Bodin in conjunction with the order queuing features in Haynes could obviously be combined to order food ahead of schedule.
Applicant made no arguments regarding the Double Patenting rejection which is maintained.
A 101 rejection has been added.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 20240169461 A1, ¶ 34-36.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSSELL S GLASS whose telephone number is (571)272-7285. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays between 10 and 6PM.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached on 571-272-6790. 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.
/RUSSELL S GLASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627