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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-13 in the reply filed on June 23, 2025 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
This office action for the 18/340310 application is in response to the communications filed November 26, 2025.
Claims 1 and 3 were amended November 26, 2025.
Claims 1-13 are currently pending and considered below.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As per claim 1,
Step 1: The claim recites subject matter within a statutory category as a machine.
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which Prong 1 determines whether a claim recites a judicial exception. Prong 2 determines if the additional limitations of the claim integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. If the additional elements of the claim fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim contains subject matter that recites an abstract idea, with the steps of management of environmental exposure and associated risk of an exposome-induced skin condition of a subject comprising: determining a geolocation of the subject, determining an ultraviolet index (UVI) and a geolocation-specific pollutant level responsive to the geolocation of the subject for a specific time period, duration, or moment in time; and determining a value of a photo-pollution metric (UVI photopollution) responsive to one or more inputs indicative of the UVI and the geolocation-specific pollutant level, wherein the value of the photo-pollution metric corresponds to an associated exposure risk of the exposome-induced skin condition. These steps, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation recite:
certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., fundamental economic principles or practices including: hedging; insurance; mitigating risk; etc., commercial or legal interactions including: agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations; etc., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including: social activities; teaching; following rules or instructions; etc.) but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting steps as performed by the generic computer components, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being directed to certain methods of organizing human activity. The identified abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon identified above, in the context of this claim, encompasses a certain method of organizing human activity, namely managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. This is because each of the limitations of the abstract idea recites a list of rules or instructions that a human person can follow in the course of their personal behavior. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers at least the recited methods of organizing human activity above, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f), such as:
“A system configured for”, “the system”, “circuitry configured for” and “circuitry for” which corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Page 13 Lines 1-10 describe that the hardware which implements the steps of the abstract idea are at a level of a generic computer. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(g), such as:
“by using an application programming interface to access location services of a mobile device to obtain geolocation data based on global positioning system (GPS) data”, and “circuitry for communicating the associated exposure risk of the exposome-induced skin condition to the subject” which corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output.
Accordingly, this claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, identified as insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields such as:
computer functions that have been identified by the courts as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), such as:
“by using an application programming interface to access location services of a mobile device to obtain geolocation data based on global positioning system (GPS) data”, and “circuitry for communicating the associated exposure risk of the exposome-induced skin condition to the subject” which corresponds to receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 2,
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 2 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“determining the ultraviolet index (UVI) and the geolocation-specific pollutant level comprises … retrieve the geolocation-specific pollutant level” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“wherein the circuitry for” and “circuitry configured to” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
“from a remote third-party server that collects and provides environmental information” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 3,
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 3 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the circuitry for determining the value of photo-pollution metric is included in the mobile device or server remote to the mobile device and the circuitry for communicating the value of the metric is included in the mobile device” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 4,
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 4 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“determining the ultraviolet index (UVI) and the geolocation-specific pollutant level comprises… retrieve geolocation-specific pollutant level information that is associated with particulate matter having a diameter of less than or equal to about 2.5 μm (PM2.5)” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“wherein the circuitry for” and “circuitry configured to” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 5,
Claim 5 depends from claim 4 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 5 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“determining the ultraviolet index (UVI) and the geolocation-specific pollutant level comprises … increase UVI photopollution incrementally with incremental increases in PM2.5” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“wherein the circuitry for” and “circuitry configured to” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 6,
Claim 6 depends from claim 4 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 6 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“determining the ultraviolet index (UVI) and the geolocation-specific pollutant level comprises … determine UVI photopollution according to: UVI photopollution = UVI + A * ( UVI * PM ) wherein: A is a weighted factor that is based on an approximate biological dose of particulate matter in an environment; (UVI*PM) is a UVI-pollutant factor; UVI is UV index; and PM is ambient air concentration of PM2.5 in the environment in μg/m3” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“wherein the circuitry for” and “circuitry configured to” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 7,
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 7 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the circuitry for communicating the associated exposure risk of the exposome-induced skin condition to the subject comprises a graphical user interface configured to depict one or more instances of the UVI, the geolocation-specific pollutant level, and/or the UVI photopollution.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 8,
Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 8 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the circuitry for communicating the associated exposure risk of the exposome-induced skin condition to the subject comprises a graphical user interface configured to depict an exposome history of the subject, an actionable guidance, a health tip, an environmental status, an environmental forecast, and/or an article of information.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 9,
Claim 9 depends from claim 8 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 9 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the exposome history is determined by… a questionnaire to the subject and receiving responses from the subject, … or wherein the exposome history is determined by accumulating the subject's historical locations and estimating historical exposure levels based on the subject's historical locations” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“one or both circuitries for determining” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
“wherein the circuitry for communicating the associated exposure risk of the exposome-induced skin condition to the subject comprises the graphical user interface configured to depict the exposome history of the subject and/or the actionable guidance,”, “presenting … via the circuitry for communicating;” and “via the circuitry for communicating” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 10,
Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 10 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the circuitry for communicating the associated exposure risk of the exposome-induced skin condition to the subject comprises a user feedback interface configured to provide an auditory feedback, a textual feedback, a software app-based feedback, a smartphone vibration feedback, and/or a haptic feedback to the subject; wherein one or more feedbacks of the user feedback interface are selectable or customizable by the user.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 11,
Claim 11 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 11 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the circuitry for communicating the associated exposure risk of the exposome-induced skin condition to the subject comprises a user feedback interface configured to provide one or more feedbacks that correspond to one or more severities of the associated exposure risk of the exposome-induced skin condition.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 12,
Claim 12 depends from claim 11 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 12 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein a first geolocation-specific pollutant level corresponds with a first feedback and a first severity of the associated exposure risk of the exposome-induced skin condition; and wherein a second geolocation-specific pollutant level corresponds with a second feedback and a second severity of the associated exposure risk of the exposome-induced skin condition; wherein the first geolocation-specific pollutant level is different from the second geolocation-specific pollutant level and the first feedback differs from the second feedback to communicate a difference in the associated exposure risk of the exposome-induced skin condition to the subject.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 13,
Claim 13 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 13 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the associated exposure risk of the exposome-induced skin condition is communicated to the subject, …, as actionable guidance to enable the subject to manage their exposure to one or more pollutants or environmental stressors or as a recommended action for the subject to manage their exposure to one or more pollutants or environmental stressors.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“via a graphical user interface” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claims 1-13 contain subject matter free of prior art. The Examiner has conducted a thorough search of the prior art and could not find a single reference, or combination of references, with adequate rationale to combine, to teach the limitation of “circuitry for determining a value of a photo-pollution metric (UVIphotopollution) responsive to one or more inputs indicative of the UVI and the geolocation-specific pollutant level, wherein the value of the photo-pollution metric corresponds to an associated exposure risk of the exposome-induced skin condition”. The closest prior art that the Examiner was able to find was:
Suwanto et al. (US 2021/0236863): which teaches a Personalized Skincare Ecosystem that is useable to identify UVI, geolocation and pollution data points as it relates to skin care. The disclosed app collects this information and outputs a notification to a end user device regarding the information collected. However, it is clear from the claims and the specification that the “value” of the “photo-pollution metric” would not support a mere notification from a system.
Jagannathan et al. (US 20230039222): which teaches at least one environmental quality index that may include at least one of an air quality index, a water quality index, a soil quality index, an electromagnetic radiation index, an ultraviolet index, a precipitation index, a tornado index, a flood vulnerability index, an earthquake vulnerability index, a wind index, and a noise pollution index. However, this environmental quality index appears to relate to determining whether a particular piece of property is livable as opposed to corresponding to an associated exposure risk of the exposome-induced skin condition.
It is clear to the Examiner that these prior arts neither alone or in combination would teach the limitations of the pending claims. If such a combination could be made with these prior arts, such a combination could have only happened through impermissible hindsight reasoning. There is no reason for one of ordinary skill in the art in possession of Suwanto to look to Jagannathan if for no other reason that the index disclosed by Jagannathan relates to several other indices that have no reasonable association with skin care and exposomes. Just because the two prior arts relate to ultraviolet exposure and air quality, it does not mean that the metrics are used in the same way. Accordingly, claims 1-13 contain subject matter free of prior art.
The Examiner notes that the Suwanto reference does appear to teach the limitations of withdrawn claim 14.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 26, 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 101 are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the reasoning of the rejections is inconsistent with the abstract idea grouping related to organizing human activity. The previous action did not find any claims that are directed to any of the enumerated “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. Rather, the rationale of reciting steps “that a human person can follow in the course of their human behavior” is actually a mental process.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument. The Examiner had clearly and explicitly stated that:
“The identified abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon identified above, in the context of this claim, encompasses a certain method of organizing human activity, namely managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. This is because each of the limitations of the abstract idea recites a list of rules or instructions that a human person can follow in the course of their personal behavior.” (Non-Final Office Action dated July 28, 2025, page 4)
Arguing that the previous Office Action did not find that the claims were directed to any of the specific methods of organizing human activity is factually false. Further, the Applicant has shifted the argument away from the position that Examiner had actually rejected the pending claims. This shift in argumentation from “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” to “Mental Processes” completely ignores the crux of the Examiner’s argument and results in the remaining arguments presented by the Applicant to be completely irrelevant.
The Applicant further argues that the pending claims as amended do not recite a mental process.
The Examiner disagrees with this argument. The Examiner has not taken the position that the pending claims recite a mental process. Rather the pending claims recite and are directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” for the reasons indicated above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAD A NEWTON whose telephone number is (313)446-6604. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-4:00PM (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PETER H. CHOI can be reached at (469) 295-9171. 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.
/CHAD A NEWTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681