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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/08/2025 has been entered.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mica (US 20230210063 A1), in view of Takashima (WO 2014132828 A1) and Bongartz et al. (US 20190259108 A1), hereinafter Bongartz.
Regarding claim 1, Mica discloses a method for providing light to a cannabis plant (lighting systems 135, cannabis plants 125; Fig. 1), the method comprising
during a first time period of a flowering stage of the cannabis plant, the first time period being one or more days (¶ 0084, lines 1-5, “a first-stage flowering phase of plants 125 [e.g., cannabis plants 125] may occur in growing module 115a. For example, growing module 115a may provide a controlled environment in which the plants 125 may grow for some period of time, such as about two weeks”), controlling a horticultural illumination system to provide horticulture light to the cannabis plant such that the cannabis plant is exposed to a first photoperiod (¶ 0084, lines 5-9, “The environment of growing module 115a may be controlled for the type of plant 125 being grown with respect to airflow, humidity, temperature, light, water delivery, wastewater removal, and plant residence time”), and thereafter
during a second time period of the flowering stage of the cannabis plant, the second time period being one or more days (¶ 0085, lines 1-5, “a second-stage flowering phase of plants 125 [e.g., cannabis plants 125] may occur in growing module 115b. For example, growing module 115b may provide a controlled environment in which the plants 125 may grow for some period of time, such as about two weeks”), controlling the horticultural illumination system to provide horticulture light to the cannabis plant such that the cannabis plant is exposed to a second photoperiod (¶ 0085, lines 5-9, “The environment of growing module 115b may be controlled for the type of plant 125 being grown with respect to airflow, humidity, temperature, light, water delivery, wastewater removal, and plant residence time”),
and wherein an increase in photoperiod from the first photoperiod to the second photoperiod does not cause the cannabis plant to revert back to a vegetative phase (¶ 0084-0087 detail that the cannabis plant undergoes four subsequent flowering stages with controlled lighting for each stage).
Mica, however, fails to specifically disclose that the second photoperiod is longer than the first photoperiod and wherein a photoperiod is defined as an amount of time that a plant is exposed to light in a period of 24 hours wherein said period of 24 hours also includes a time of darkness, wherein the second photoperiod comprises an initial period and a photoperiod extension, wherein the photoperiod extension is defined as additional hours of exposing the cannabis plant to horticulture light during the second photoperiod compared to the first photoperiod, and wherein the horticulture light of the second photoperiod has a different spectral composition during the photoperiod extension than during the initial period, and wherein the method further comprises: during the first time period, determining a growth of a diameter of a stem per unit of time of the cannabis plant, determining a sensitivity of the cannabis plant to the photoperiod based on the determined diameter growth, and based on a determination that the determined sensitivity value is below a threshold sensitivity value, starting the second time period and controlling the horticultural illumination system to provide horticulture light to the cannabis plant such that the cannabis plant is exposed to the second photoperiod.
Takashima is in the field of artificial lighting for plant growth and teaches wherein the second photoperiod is longer than the first photoperiod, and wherein a photoperiod is defined as an amount of time that a plant is exposed to light in a period of 24 hours wherein said period of 24 hours also includes a time of darkness (lines 16-20, “This describes a configuration in which a light-emitting unit that causes multiple light-emitting elements to emit light has multiple light-emitting elements that are arranged in a regular pattern from the center to the periphery, and the light-emitting elements of the light-emitting unit can be combined in any number of or individually to be turned on, dimmed, or turned off depending on the growth of the plant;” lines 172-175, “on the third to tenth day after sowing [corresponding to the early growth stage], the top of the stem 26, where the growth point is located, is irradiated with only the blue LED 14b, and the leaves 28 are irradiated with the red LED 14r. The irradiation time is, for example, 16 hours per day;” lines 179 and 180, “On the 10th to 20th days, as shown in FIG. 5, the blue LED 14b, the red LED 14r, and the white LED 14w are irradiated. The irradiation time is, for example, 24 hours per day”), wherein the second photoperiod comprises an initial period and a photoperiod extension, wherein the photoperiod extension is defined as additional hours of exposing the cannabis plant to horticulture light during the second photoperiod compared to the first photoperiod (lines 16-20, lines 172-175 describes how the second photoperiod comprises an extended photoperiod with additional hours of exposing the cannabis plant to horticulture light than the first photoperiod),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant lighting before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Mica such that the second photoperiod is longer than the first photoperiod and wherein a photoperiod is defined as an amount of time that a plant is exposed to light in a period of 24 hours wherein said period of 24 hours also includes a time of darkness, as taught by the photoperiod and spectrum control of Takashima. This would allow the user to more precisely tailor the photoperiod and spectrum depending on a specific stage of growth for the plant, which would improve the amount of control the user has over the system. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Bongartz is in the field of plant lighting and teaches and wherein the horticulture light of the second photoperiod has a different spectral composition during the photoperiod extension than during the initial period (¶ 1046, Furthermore, the agricultural light fixture may be configured to enable changing the spectral composition of light, particularly as a function of the moving location of the maximum value of the light intensity with respect to the light emitting surface. The spectrum may be changed as a function of the intensity or the intensity can be changed as a function of the spectrum during a period. It is also possible that different relation of spectrum and intensity are applied in different periods, e.g. if a period has a length of 4 hours and the daily illumination is 12 hours, then each of the 3 periods could have a different relation of spectrum and intensity), and wherein the method further comprises:
during the first time period, determining a growth of a diameter of a stem per unit of time of the cannabis plant (¶ 1289, “The term daily light integral [DLI] is used to describe the total quantity of light delivered to a crop over the course of an entire day. The DLI is reported as the number of moles [particles of light] per day. Knowing the quantity of light delivered throughout the day can be a useful measurement for estimating the effect of sunlight on plant growth. Many important plant growth responses, such as biomass accumulation, stem diameter, branching, root growth and flower number are closely correlated to DLI. DLI can be a tool for managing the light environment to optimize plant growth”),
determining a sensitivity of the cannabis plant to the photoperiod based on the determined diameter growth (¶ 1289), and
based on a determination that the determined sensitivity value is below a threshold sensitivity value, starting the second time period and controlling the horticultural illumination system to provide horticulture light to the cannabis plant such that the cannabis plant is exposed to the second photoperiod (¶ 1029, “Furthermore, the agricultural light fixture may be configured to have two different intensities: One maximum intensity and one ‘standard’ intensity [which is lower than the maximum intensity]. The agricultural light fixture may as well be configured that its intensities can change gradually between a maximum and a minimum value. The difference between maximum and minimum needs to be sufficient to activate the phototropism of the plants. Furthermore, the values for maximum and minimum intensity and their respective durations may be adapted to the required DLI [day light integral] for each plant;” ¶ 1187, “In some embodiments/implementations, a countermeasure for compensating the reduced emission is taken, depending on a threshold value for instance, the light recipe can be modified, particularly the intensity can be increased. Alternatively or in addition, the overall duration of the lighting can be increased, and/or the distance between a lighting fixture and the irradiated plant can be reduced and/or the orientation of a fixture can be adjusted;” ¶ 2525, “FIG. 65 illustrates a monitoring 6500 of the reduced lighting resulting from the modulation. Upon a comparison 6501 with a threshold value, no action 6502 is taken as long as a threshold value is not reached. Upon reaching 6503 the threshold value, the light recipe is adapted”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant lighting before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Mica in view of Takashima such that the horticulture light of the second photoperiod has a different spectral composition during the photoperiod extension than during the initial period, and wherein the method further comprises: during the first time period, determining a growth of a diameter of a stem per unit of time of the cannabis plant, determining a sensitivity of the cannabis plant to the photoperiod based on the determined diameter growth, and based on a determination that the determined sensitivity value is below a threshold sensitivity value, starting the second time period and controlling the horticultural illumination system to provide horticulture light to the cannabis plant such that the cannabis plant is exposed to the second photoperiod, as taught by the photoperiod and spectrum control of Bongartz. This would allow the user to more precisely tailor the spectrum depending on a specific stage of growth for the plant within a given photoperiod, which would improve the amount of control the user has over the system. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Mica in view of Takashima and Bongartz discloses the method of claim 1, including further comprising during a third time period of the flowering stage of the cannabis plant, the third time period occurring later than the second time period, the third time period being one or more days (Mica; ¶ 0086, lines 1-5, “a third-stage flowering phase of plants 125 [e.g., cannabis plants 125] may occur in growing module 115c. For example, growing module 115c may provide a controlled environment in which the plants 125 may grow for some period of time, such as about two weeks”), controlling the horticultural illumination system to provide horticulture light to the cannabis plant such that the cannabis plant is exposed to a third photoperiod (Mica; ¶ 0086, lines 5-9, “The environment of growing module 115c may be controlled for the type of plant 125 being grown with respect to airflow, humidity, temperature, light, water delivery, wastewater removal, and plant residence time”), wherein one photoperiod is longer than another photoperiod (Takashimi; lines 16-20; lines 172-175; lines 179 and 180).
The modified reference, however, fails to specifically disclose wherein the third photoperiod is longer than the second photoperiod. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to have adjusted the third photoperiod of the method of Mica in view of Takashima and Bongartz to be longer than the second photoperiod in order to tailor to the optimal growth conditions of a specific plant. Additionally, it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Regarding claim 3, Mica in view of Takashima and Bongartz discloses the method of claim 1, including wherein the second photoperiod is longer than the first photoperiod (Takashima; lines 16-20; lines 172-175; lines 179 and 180).
The modified reference, however, fails to specifically disclose wherein the first photoperiod is between 10 hours and 14 hours and wherein the second photoperiod is between 1 and 5 hours longer than said first photoperiod. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to have provided the first photoperiod of the method of Mica in view of Takashima with a duration of between 10 hours and 14 hours and the second photoperiod with a duration between 1 and 5 hours longer than said first photoperiod in order to tailor to the optimal growth conditions of a specific plant. Additionally, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 4, Mica in view of Takashima and Bongartz discloses the method of claim 1.
Mica discloses wherein the first time period lasts for 2 to 6 weeks (¶ 0084, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 5, Mica in view of Takashima and Bongartz discloses the method of claim 1, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein:
the flowering stage consist of N subsequent time periods {n_1; n_2; ...; n_N-1, n_N}, N being an integer number higher than 1, the first time period being any of the time periods {n_1; n_2; ...; n_N-1} and the second time period being any of the time periods {n_2; ...; n_N-1, n_N} after the first time period (Mica; ¶ 0084, lines 1-5; ¶ 0085, lines 1-5), wherein the method comprises
during each time period of the N subsequent time periods {n_1; n_2; ...; n_N-1, n_N}, controlling the horticultural illumination system to provide horticulture light to the cannabis plant such that the cannabis plant is exposed to a photoperiod tk, wherein k is an integer number and tk indicates the photoperiod for the kth time period of the N subsequent time periods (Mica; ¶ 0084, lines 5-9; ¶ 0085, lines 5-9),
wherein for at least a pair of time periods consisting of time period nk and subsequent time period nk+1, tk+1 is different from tk (Takashimi; lines 16-20; lines 172-175; lines 179 and 180).
Regarding claim 6, Mica in view of Takashima and Bongartz discloses the method of claim 5, including at least a trio of time periods consisting of time period nk, subsequent time period nk+1 and subsequent time period nk+2 (Mica; ¶ 0084-0086 describe three subsequent flowering time periods where the cannabis plant is subjected to controlled lighting).
The modified reference, however, fails to specifically disclose that tk+2 > tk+1 > tk. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to have adjusted the third photoperiod of the method of Mica in view of Takashima to be longer than the second photoperiod such that tk+2 > tk+1 > tk in order to tailor to the optimal growth conditions of a specific plant. Additionally, it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Regarding claim 7, Mica in view of Takashima and Bongartz discloses the method of claim 5, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein t-N > 15 hours (Takashima; lines 179 and 180).
Regarding claim 8, Mica in view of Takashima and Bongartz discloses the method of claim 1, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches further comprising controlling the horticultural illumination system to provide, during at least part of the second photoperiod, horticulture light with a different spectral composition compared to the horticulture light provided during the first photoperiod (Takashima; lines 172-175 and lines 179 and 180 show that during the first photoperiod, LEDs with only blue and red spectrums are used, but in the second photoperiod an LEDs with white spectrum is used as well).
Regarding claim 12, Mica in view of Takashima, and Bongartz discloses the method of claim 1, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein determining the growth of the diameter of the stem per unit of time comprises determining the growth of the diameter of the stem per unit of time based on one or more images representing at least part of the cannabis plant (Bongartz; ¶ 0666, The controlled agricultural system comprises at least one sensor, which is able to detect the flowers [or buds] at a plant or to measure the biomass of the plants in the target area. For instance, the at least one sensor may comprise a camera and an image recognition system [object recognition and classification] to detect flowers [or buds] at a plant;” ¶ 2552, “Step 6810 may involve taking pictures from the plants, determining the size, shape or color of the plants/flowers. Furthermore, the computing device 140 may compare present images of the plants with various images of the plants stored in the database 170 to determine the present growth phase. The growth phases may comprise breeding, greening, flowering and harvest”).
Regarding claim 13, Mica discloses a system for providing light to a cannabis plant, the system comprising a horticulture illumination system configured to provide horticulture light to the cannabis plant, and a control system (controller 150, lighting systems 135, cannabis plants 125; Fig. 1) that is configured to
during a first time period of a flowering stage of the cannabis plant, the first time period being one or more days (¶ 0084, lines 1-5), control a horticultural illumination system to provide horticulture light to the cannabis plant such that the cannabis plant is exposed to a first photoperiod (¶ 0084, lines 5-9), and to thereafter
during a second time period of the flowering stage of the cannabis plant, the second time period being one or more days (¶ 0085, lines 1-5), control the horticultural illumination system to provide horticulture light to the cannabis plant such that the cannabis plant is exposed to a second photoperiod (¶ 0085, lines 5-9),
and wherein an increase in photoperiod from the first photoperiod to the second photoperiod does not cause the cannabis plant to revert back to a vegetative phase (¶ 0084-0087 detail that the cannabis plant undergoes four subsequent flowering stages with controlled lighting for each stage).
Mica, however, fails to specifically disclose that the second photoperiod is longer than the first photoperiod and wherein a photoperiod is defined as an amount of time that a plant is exposed to light in a period of 24 hours wherein said period of 24 hours also includes a time of darkness, wherein the second photoperiod comprises an initial period and a photoperiod extension, wherein the photoperiod extension is defined as additional hours of exposing the cannabis plant to horticulture light during the second photoperiod compared to the first photoperiod, and wherein the horticulture light of the second photoperiod has a different spectral composition during the photoperiod extension than during the initial period, and wherein the control system is further configured to: during the first time period, determine a growth of a diameter of a stem per unit of time of the cannabis plant, determine a sensitivity of the cannabis plant to the photoperiod based on the determined diameter growth, and based on a determination that the determined sensitivity value is below a threshold sensitivity value, start the second time period and controlling the horticultural illumination system to provide horticulture light to the cannabis plant such that the cannabis plant is exposed to the second photoperiod.
Takashima is in the field of artificial lighting for plant growth and teaches wherein the second photoperiod is longer than the first photoperiod, and wherein a photoperiod is defined as an amount of time that a plant is exposed to light in a period of 24 hours wherein said period of 24 hours also includes a time of darkness (lines 16-20; lines 172-175; lines 179 and 180), wherein the second photoperiod comprises an initial period and a photoperiod extension, wherein the photoperiod extension is defined as additional hours of exposing the cannabis plant to horticulture light during the second photoperiod compared to the first photoperiod (lines 16-20, lines 172-175 describes how the second photoperiod comprises an extended photoperiod with additional hours of exposing the cannabis plant to horticulture light than the first photoperiod),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant lighting before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Mica such that the second photoperiod is longer than the first photoperiod and wherein a photoperiod is defined as an amount of time that a plant is exposed to light in a period of 24 hours wherein said period of 24 hours also includes a time of darkness, as taught by the photoperiod and spectrum control of Takashima. This would allow the user to more precisely tailor the photoperiod and spectrum depending on a specific stage of growth for the plant, which would improve the amount of control the user has over the system. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Bongartz teaches and wherein the horticulture light of the second photoperiod has a different spectral composition during the photoperiod extension than during the initial period (¶ 1046), and wherein the control system is further configured to:
during the first time period, determine a growth of a diameter of a stem per unit of time of the cannabis plant (¶ 1289),
determine a sensitivity of the cannabis plant to the photoperiod based on the determined diameter growth (¶ 1289), and
based on a determination that the determined sensitivity value is below a threshold sensitivity value, start the second time period and controlling the horticultural illumination system to provide horticulture light to the cannabis plant such that the cannabis plant is exposed to the second photoperiod (¶ 1029, ¶ 1187, ¶ 2525).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant lighting before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Mica in view of Takashima such that the horticulture light of the second photoperiod has a different spectral composition during the photoperiod extension than during the initial period, and wherein the control system is further configured to: during the first time period, determine a growth of a diameter of a stem per unit of time of the cannabis plant, determine a sensitivity of the cannabis plant to the photoperiod based on the determined diameter growth, and based on a determination that the determined sensitivity value is below a threshold sensitivity value, start the second time period and controlling the horticultural illumination system to provide horticulture light to the cannabis plant such that the cannabis plant is exposed to the second photoperiod, as taught by the photoperiod and spectrum control of Bongartz. This would allow the user to more precisely tailor the spectrum depending on a specific stage of growth for the plant within a given photoperiod, which would improve the amount of control the user has over the system. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 14, Mica in view of Takashima and Bongartz discloses the method of claim 1, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a control system, causes the control system to perform the method according to claim 1 (Mica; ¶ 0075, lines 8-10, “Additionally, plant cultivation system 100 may include a controller 150 for managing the overall operations of plant cultivation system 100;” ¶ 0081, lines 6-8, “A certain amount of data storage [e.g., a memory device, not shown] may be associated with controller 150”).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mica (US 20230210063 A1), in view of Takashima (WO 2014132828 A1) and Bongartz (US 20190259108 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 13, and further in view of Ohtake et al. (US 20200260651 A1), hereinafter Ohtake.
Regarding claim 16, Mica in view of Takashima and Bongartz discloses the method of claim 1, including a photoperiod extension (Takashima; lines 16-20, lines 172-175), however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose a spectral composition of the horticulture light during the photoperiod extension comprises 100% red light or 100% blue light.
Ohtake is in the field of plant lighting and teaches a spectral composition of the horticulture light during the photoperiod extension comprises 100% red light or 100% blue light (¶ 0025, “[7] The method for cultivating a plant seedling according to any one of [3] to [6], comprising continuously irradiating the plant seedling with only red illumination light for period [C] between period [A] for continuously irradiating the plant seedling with blue illumination light and period [B] for not irradiating the plant seedling with any light wherein a time taken for period [C] is more than 0 hours and 5 hours or less”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant lighting before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Mica in view of Takashimi and Bongartz such that a spectral composition of the horticulture light during the photoperiod extension comprises 100% red light or 100% blue light, as taught by the spectral composition of Ohtake. This would promote favorable growth of a plant body planted in relation to its overall grow period. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 17, Mica in view of Takashima and Bongartz discloses the device of claim 13, including a photoperiod extension (Takashima; lines 16-20, lines 172-175), however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose a spectral composition of the horticulture light during the photoperiod extension comprises 100% red light or 100% blue light.
Ohtake is in the field of plant lighting and teaches a spectral composition of the horticulture light during the photoperiod extension comprises 100% red light or 100% blue light (¶ 0025, “[7] The method for cultivating a plant seedling according to any one of [3] to [6], comprising continuously irradiating the plant seedling with only red illumination light for period [C] between period [A] for continuously irradiating the plant seedling with blue illumination light and period [B] for not irradiating the plant seedling with any light wherein a time taken for period [C] is more than 0 hours and 5 hours or less”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant lighting before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Mica in view of Takashimi and Bongartz such that a spectral composition of the horticulture light during the photoperiod extension comprises 100% red light or 100% blue light, as taught by the spectral composition of Ohtake. This would promote favorable growth of a plant body planted in relation to its overall grow period. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/08/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Dagen et al., US 20180271025 A1, discusses methods for providing height enhanced grafted plants and products thereof.
Shimokawa et al., US 20200081026 A1, discusses a vascular sap flow speed sensor and method of manufacturing a vascular sap flow speed sensor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SPENCER THOMAS CALLAWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-3512. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached on 571-270-5301. 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.
/S.T.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642