DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
This Office Action is in response to submission of documents on December 9, 2022.
Rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Graeber.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 3-5, 10-13, and 17-19 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 3, 10, and 17 recite “wherein the one or more material flows us derived from aggregated transaction data…” and should recite “wherein the one or more material flows is derived from aggregated transaction data….” Appropriate correction is required. Claims 4-5, 11-13, and 18-19 are objected to for depending from an objected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite “one or more reliability ratings.” The term does not have an accepted meaning in the field and is not defined in the Specification. Further, the term “one or more reliability ratings” does not appear in any of the other claims, thereby giving context to what is meany by a “reliability rating.” Accordingly, for the purposes of examination, the limitation of inputs including “one or more reliability ratings” will not be considered as necessary for the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite “the manufacturing entity.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite “a plurality of modeling inputs including one or more associated footprints,” which indicates that the “associated footprints” may be a single footprint or multiple footprints. However, the claim also recites “the one or more associated footprints including” followed by multiple types of footprints, connected with an “and,” thereby indicating that all of the items in the list are required in order for the claimed invention. Accordingly, it is unclear how a single “associated footprint” can also be all three of the enumerated “associated footprints,” thus making the claim indefinite for not clearly stating what is required for “one or more associated footprints.” For the purposes of examination, “one or more associated footprints” includes any one of “user provided footprint inputs, information provided via a data processing integration with one or more suppliers of physical inputs; and inputs derived from one or more lifecycle assessment (LCA) databases” and not requiring all three.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exceptions without significantly more. The claims recite mathematical calculations and additional elements. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements that are recited in the claims are extra-solution activities that do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because courts have found that the steps of receiving and providing data are not significantly more than a judicial exception.
Claim 1
Step 1: The claim is directed to an article of manufacture, falling under one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim 1 limitations include (bolded for abstract idea identification):
Claim 1
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 1
One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer- executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, perform a method for providing automated mechanisms for modelling and quantitatively characterizing emissions inflows and outflows for an entity over a certain period based on a set of physical transactions, the method comprising:
receiving a plurality of scoping inputs including a physical process defined scope of emission-producing physical inputs, the plurality of scoping inputs including: a technical input definition and one or more reliability ratings;
receiving a plurality of modeling inputs including one or more associated footprints associated with physical manufacturing inputs, the one or more associated footprints including: user provided footprint inputs, information provided via a data processing integration with one or more suppliers of physical inputs; and inputs derived from one or more lifecycle assessment (LCA) databases, the plurality of modeling inputs further including one or more model energy flows associated with one or more production processes;
calculating an estimated emission flow based on one or more combined energy flows, based at least in part on the plurality of modeling inputs and one or more material flows; and
providing one or more analytics user interfaces associated with the calculated emissions flows to provide insight into highest emission producing emission drivers along a production chain and aggregating associated data into a technical report, the technical report being correlated with a balance sheet associated with the manufacturing entity.
Abstract Idea: Mathematical Calculations
The limitation is directed to a “calculation,” which is a mathematical concept. Although not disclosed with specificity in the Specification, the process of “calculating an estimated emission flow” appears to be an additive process (“The calculated emission flow is based on a calculated emission footprint at a plurality of stages along a production process.” Spec. at [0067]). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The claim 1 limitations recite (bolded for additional element identification):
Claim 1
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 2
One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer- executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, perform a method for providing automated mechanisms for modelling and quantitatively characterizing emissions inflows and outflows for an entity over a certain period based on a set of physical transactions, the method comprising:
receiving a plurality of scoping inputs including a physical process defined scope of emission-producing physical inputs, the plurality of scoping inputs including: a technical input definition and one or more reliability ratings;
receiving a plurality of modeling inputs including one or more associated footprints associated with physical manufacturing inputs, the one or more associated footprints including: user provided footprint inputs, information provided via a data processing integration with one or more suppliers of physical inputs; and inputs derived from one or more lifecycle assessment (LCA) databases, the plurality of modeling inputs further including one or more model energy flows associated with one or more production processes;
calculating an estimated emission flow based on one or more combined energy flows, based at least in part on the plurality of modeling inputs and one or more material flows; and
providing one or more analytics user interfaces associated with the calculated emissions flows to provide insight into highest emission producing emission drivers along a production chain and aggregating associated data into a technical report, the technical report being correlated with a balance sheet associated with the manufacturing entity.
Reciting generic computer components is the additional element of instructions to apply the recited judicial exception, which courts have found does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f), Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014), Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972), Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 112 USPQ2d 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Transmitting data (e.g., sending and receiving data) is an extra-solution activity that courts have found does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. See Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Transmitting data (e.g., sending and receiving data) is an extra-solution activity that courts have found does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. See Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Transmitting data (e.g., sending and receiving data) is an extra-solution activity that courts have found does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. See Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Step 2B: Regarding Step 2B, the inquiry is whether any of the additional elements (i.e., the elements that are not the judicial exception) amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. The additional elements recite generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f), Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014), Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972), Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 112 USPQ2d 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) and data transmission (See Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)), both of which courts have found do not amount to significantly more than a recited judicial exception.
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 2
Claim 2 recites wherein the model energy flows are provided via a graphical modeling user interface and one or more support allocation rule definitions for distributing one or more overhead emissions footprint definitions. The claim does not recite any judicial exceptions and does not include additional elements that are not already rejected in claim 1. For example, the claim merely describes the provided interface with additional specificity, which is still an additional element that does not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 2 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 3
Claim 3 recites wherein the one or more material flows us derived from aggregated transaction data associated with the physical process defined scope of emission-producing physical inputs. Aggregating data is either a mathematical concept (e.g., taking “aggregating” as synonymous with “adding”) or a mental process (e.g., taking “aggregating” as synonymous with “combining”). In with instance, aggregating data is a judicial exception that is ineligible patentable subject matter. Accordingly, claim 3 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 4
Claim 4 recites wherein the calculated emission flow is based on a calculated emission footprint at a plurality of stages along a production process. The limitation is directed to a “calculation,” which is a mathematical concept. The Specification does not provide additional details as to how the calculation is performed other than the same language as recited in the claim (“The calculated emission flow is based on a calculated emission footprint at a plurality of stages along a production process.” Spec. at [0067]). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I.
Accordingly, claim 4 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 5
Claim 5 recites wherein the calculated emission flow may be visualized in connection with a Sankey chart. The claim does not include additional elements and/or judicial exceptions but instead merely recites elements that are already rejected with greater specificity. Accordingly, claim 5 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 6
Claim 6 recites wherein providing one or more analytics user interfaces comprises providing an emissions report mapping emissions to entries in an accounting system. “Providing one or more analytics interfaces” has been identified as an additional element that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim merely describes additional details of the interface. Accordingly, claim 6 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 7
Claim 7 recites wherein the emissions outflows correspond to a quantity of carbon emissions. The claim does not include additional elements and/or judicial exceptions but instead describes already recited (and rejected) elements with additional details. Accordingly, claim 7 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 8-14
Claim 8 recites a method that performs substantially the same steps as the non-transitory media of claim 1. According, for at least the same reasons as claim 1, claim 8 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claims 9-14 recite limitations that are substantially the same as the limitations of claims 2-7. Accordingly, for at least the same reasons, claims 9-14 are rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claims 15-20
Claim 15 recites a system that performs substantially the same steps as the non-transitory media of claim 1. According, for at least the same reasons as claim 1, claim 15 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claims 16-20 recite limitations that are substantially the same as the limitations of claims 2-6. Accordingly, for at least the same reasons, claims 16-20 are rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Graeber, et al., (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0101212, hereinafter “Graeber”).
Claim 1
Graeber discloses:
One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer- executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, perform a method
Articles are also described that comprise a tangibly embodied machine-readable medium operable to cause one or more machines (e.g., computers, etc.) to result in operations described herein. Similarly, computer systems are also described that may include a processor and a memory coupled to the processor. The memory may include one or more programs that cause the processor to perform one or more of the operations described herein. Graeber at [0005].
for providing automated mechanisms for modelling and quantitatively characterizing emissions inflows and outflows for an entity over a certain period based on a set of physical transactions, the method comprising:
In some embodiments, there is provided a GHG data model which is used to extend the data models of an enterprise system, such as an enterprise resource planning (ERP) system, so that the enterprise system can allocate GHG emissions to products or services. Graeber at [0020].
receiving a plurality of scoping inputs including a physical process defined scope of emission-producing physical inputs, the plurality of scoping inputs including:
The user interface 1000 allows defining a GHG data model by providing an ID for the model (e.g., “Bakery Energy Flow 2020”), a description of the model, a date range for the validity of the model, an inventory scope indicating footprint inventory periodicity (i.e. valid from, valid to), the companies incorporated into that scope, estimation level (individual product level or product category level) the GHG categories that shall be taken into consideration, and/or a Business Res indicating the physical location. Graeber at [0045].
a technical input definition and
In the example of user interface 750, a hot water energy carrier is newly added, so data may be provided defining that carrier (e.g., an ID “HOTWATER”, a Description “Hot water 90° C.” and a base UoM of 1 liter). After the carrier is defined, the definition may be saved 754 to enable use with the GHG data model. For example, the energy carrier defined at 700 and 750 may be the source of the electricity 260 or gas 255 depicted at the model of FIG. 2, for example. Graeber at [0041].
one or more reliability ratings;
As indicated with regards to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the term “one or more reliability ratings” is not defined in the Specification nor does the term have a single accepted definition. Accordingly, the limitation is not being considered with regards to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
receiving a plurality of modeling inputs including one or more associated footprints associated with physical manufacturing inputs, the one or more associated footprints including: user provided footprint inputs, information provided via a data processing integration with one or more suppliers of physical inputs; and
FIG. 2B depicts an example of an Ecology Management Engine (EME) 270 retrieving data from an ERP system 272. For example, the EME reads aggregated transaction data from ERP for a given time period. This transaction data may include goods receipt from supplier per material, internal service confirmations from production, and the like. Graeber at [0036].
inputs derived from one or more lifecycle assessment (LCA) databases, the plurality of modeling inputs further including one or more model energy flows associated with one or more production processes;
Referring again to FIG. 6, when the energy flow models is selected at 606, the user interface 1000 at FIG. 10 is caused to be presented at the client device. The user interface 1000 allows defining a GHG data model by providing an ID for the model (e.g., “Bakery Energy Flow 2020”), a description of the model, a date range for the validity of the model, an inventory scope indicating footprint inventory periodicity (i.e. valid from, valid to), the companies incorporated into that scope, estimation level (individual product level or product category level) the GHG categories that shall be taken into consideration, and/or a Business Res indicating the physical location. Graeber at [0045].
calculating an estimated emission flow based on one or more combined energy flows, based at least in part on the plurality of modeling inputs and one or more material flows; and
The second data model includes energy data and flows associated with the product or the service. The second data model includes emissions that occur during a least a portion of a lifecycle of the product or the service, the portion including emissions related to distribution, storage, usage, and/or disposal. The first and second data models are configured to form a directed graph to enable the calculation that allocates to the product or the service the amount of greenhouse gas emissions. Graeber at [0004].
providing one or more analytics user interfaces associated with the calculated emissions flows to provide insight into highest emission producing emission drivers along a production chain and aggregating associated data into a technical report, the technical report being correlated with a balance sheet associated with the manufacturing entity.
FIG. 6 depicts an example of a user interface where a user may choose to add energy carriers 602, flow elements 604, flow models 606, or energy consumption rates 608 to the GHG data flow model. Referring to FIG. 6, a selection 602 at a client device may be received, and this selection 602 may be indicative of an energy carrier being selected for use in the model. In response to the selection 602, a user interface 700 at FIG. 7 may be caused to be presented at the client device. The user interface 700 enables editing 704 of an existing energy carrier or defining a new 702 energy carrier, such as a carrier providing cold water, gas, power, steam, etc., each of which may have a unit of measure (UoM). Graeber at [0040].
Claim 2
Graeber discloses:
wherein the model energy flows are provided via a graphical modeling user interface and
FIGS. 6-11 depict examples of user interfaces at which one or more aspects of the GHG data model are defined. Graeber at [0014].
one or more support allocation rule definitions for distributing one or more overhead emissions footprint definitions.
Like the costing analytics provided by an ERP system, one or more GHG data models may extend the models of an ERP system to enable allocation of GRG emissions to a given product or product line. Graeber at [0021].
Claim 3
Graeber discloses:
wherein the one or more material flows us derived from aggregated transaction data associated with the physical process defined scope of emission-producing physical inputs.
FIG. 2B depicts an example of an Ecology Management Engine (EME) 270 retrieving data from an ERP system 272. For example, the EME reads aggregated transaction data from ERP for a given time period. This transaction data may include goods receipt from supplier per material, internal service confirmations from production, and the like. Graeber at [0036].
Claim 4
Graeber discloses:
wherein the calculated emission flow is based on a calculated emission footprint at a plurality of stages along a production process.
[T]here may be maintained multiple, parallel GHG node breakdowns as vectors on top of GHG quantity scalar and as explanation component of the GHG origin by GHG quantity break-down by GHG emission categories, GHG quantity break-down by country of emission origin, and GHG quantity break-down by country of emission origin and by emission categories (cross product). Graeber at [0034].
Claim 5
Graeber discloses:
wherein the calculated emission flow may be visualized in connection with a Sankey chart.
The user interface is configured as a Sankey diagram. Graeber at [0004].
Claim 6
Graeber discloses:
wherein providing one or more analytics user interfaces comprises providing an emissions report mapping emissions to entries in an accounting system.
Moreover, the GHG data modeling may also take into account protocols and standards, such as Greenhouse Gas Protocol: Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard, GHG protocol guidance. (See, e.g., https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/standards/Product-Life-Cycle-Accounting-Reporting-Standard_041613.pdf, date visited Aug. 6, 2020). Graeber at [0022].
Claim 7
Graeber discloses:
wherein the emissions outflows correspond to a quantity of carbon emissions.
FIG. 4 depicts the allocation, based on gas, of C02 emissions. In this example, the 1000 kilograms of C02 emissions are allocated based on the corresponding consumption of the oven and cooling system, so 800 kilograms of carbon dioxide (C02) emissions are allocated to the oven 222 and 200 kilograms of C02 emissions are allocated to the cooling system. The 150 kg CO2 emissions and the 50 kg CO2 emissions are from the combustion of gas in the cooling system. The 200 kg of CO2 emissions from the cooling system 230 are allocated to assembly A 226 and assembly B 228 by the planned consumption from the ERP system. The allocation may be in accordance with GHG scope category 1.1 stationary combustion. Graeber at [0030].
Claims 8-14
Claims 8-14 recite the method and limitations that are stored on the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1. Accordingly, for at least the same reasons and based on the same prior art as claims 1-7, claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Graeber.
Claims 15-20
Claims 15-20 recite a system that includes, as memory, the media recited in claim 1. Accordingly, for at least the same reasons and based on the same prior art as claims 1-6, claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Graeber.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0232935: Discloses life cycle analysis methods, automating carbon footprint tracking of supply chains, and receiving emissions data from various sources.
U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0107618: Discloses quantifying carbon footprint for the production of materials in a supply chain.
Gao, et al., “Economic and Environmental Life Cycle Optimization of Noncooperative Supply Chains and Product Systems: Modeling Framework, Mixed-Integer Bilevel Fractional Programming Algorithm, and Shale Gas Application”: Discloses LCA databases, designing optimizing supply chains to reduce carbon footprints of materials, and accounting analysis of material supply coupled with carbon footprint data.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH MORRIS whose telephone number is (703)756-5735. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571) 272-4071. 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.
JOSEPH MORRIS
Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/JOSEPH P MORRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188