DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/16/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This is in reply to the claim amendments and remarks of the RCE filed 10/16/2025.
Claims 1, 11, 16, and 20 have been amended and claim 21 has been added new.
Claims 1-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/6/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered, but do not overcome the previously pending 35 USC 101 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
No agreement was made in the informal discussion, but rather that further consideration of the PTAB decision would be required.
Regarding the 112 rejections Applicant’s originally filed specification makes no mention of any sort of preconfigured dynamic data structure. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The Affidavit filed 10/6/2025 is not persuasive. The affidavit provides all sorts of additional details as to how the claims can be used and recites arguments that are not claimed or even recited in the specification. Please see arguments below for further reasoning.
With regard to the limitations of claims 1-21, Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible under 35 USC 101 because the pending claims are not directed toward an abstract idea. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner has already set forth a prima facie case under 35 USC 101. The Examiner has clearly pointed out the limitations directed towards the abstract idea, what the additional elements are and why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and why the additional elements and remaining limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The Examiner asserts that the PTAB decision is not controlling in this case and unrelated. That PTAB case recited a specific improvement to the machine learning, where Applicant’s claims recite generic use of machine learning, where generic use of machine learning in a specific technical environment (e.g. crop analysis) does not improve the machine learning or improve the computer itself (See MPEP 2106). The Examiner notes the specific analysis of satisfying boundary conditions using inflection points and a cubic equation further narrows the abstract idea, where a narrow abstract idea is still an abstract idea. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The Examiner further specifically points to claim 8, which recites “wherein the outcome generation function comprises a cubic equation for generating the actual environment dependent response” and entails any cubic equation for generating outcomes on environment analysis. The Examiner asserts a narrow abstract idea is still an abstract idea. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant does not properly identify the additional elements. The Examiner points to Page 2 of the McRO-Bascom Memo from December 2016, "The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation "that improved [the] existing technological process", unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process." The Applicants’ claims are geared toward analyzing environmental variables to make determinations for humans to interpret, where these techniques are merely being applied/calculated in a computing environment. Simply applying these known concepts to a specific technical environment (e.g. the computers/Internet) does not account for significantly more than the abstract idea because it does not solve a problem rooted in computer technology nor does it improve the functioning of the computer itself because it is merely making a determination based on rules and/or mathematical relationships to output to a user. The Applicant’s claimed limitations do not appear to bring about any improvement in the operation or functioning of a computer per se, or to improve computer-related technology by allowing computer performance of a function not previously performable by a computer (see page 2 of the McRo-Bascom memo). The solution appears to be more of a business-driven solution rather than a technical one. In addition, McRO had no evidence that the process previously used by animators is the same as the process required by the claims. The Applicant’s claimed limitations and originally filed specification provide no evidence that the claimed process/functions are any different than what would be done without a computer, where there are no adjustments to the mental process to accommodate implementation by computers. For the reasons explained above applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The Examiner specifically asserts that “generate continuous curves having at least one inflection point and that adapt in response to the environmental information while satisfying the boundary conditions, the outcome multiplier configured to dynamically generate attribution of a given resource response, and the environmental parameters as a function of the selected PEAM” and “wherein the outcome generation function comprises a cubic equation for generating the actual environment dependent response” further narrow the abstract idea and are merely being implemented on a general purpose computer (See MPEP 2106). The Examiner further points to MPEP 2106.05 which states “the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting "the Government’s invitation to substitute §§ 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under § 101 "). As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter”, where a narrow abstract idea is still an abstract idea. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the data structure and Enfish make the claims eligible. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s specification mentions preconfigured data structures twice and has been rejected as an introduction of new matter. The Examiner further asserts a preconfigured data structure is still recited at such a high level of generality that it would mere add the words apply it with the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106) because it is generic storage of data in a non-volatile data store which is a generic database. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the Examiner misapplies the law. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant does not actually point out from the claims what the improvement is. The Examiner further asserts no sort of automation is claimed. Even looking at the specification the automation is a generic update of the analysis as new data becomes available, which further narrows the abstract idea. The computer itself is being generically used to implement the abstract idea, where the Applicant has added many adjectives to make the hardware seem technical, but really it is just general purpose computer components. The Examiner points to Figure 1 and related text showing how the hardware is merely general purpose computer components. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the Examiner improperly shifts the burden of proof. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner has clearly provided support from Applicant’s own specification (See Figure 1 and Paragraphs 0085-0093) and MPEP 2106 as the required proof. Applicant does not even point out what is actually wrong with the Examiner rejection, but just makes the allegation. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The Examiner asserts that the analysis for an improvement to technology is done on a case by case basis. Please see the response above and rejection below. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims recite specific improvements to the technology. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner asserts that using inflection points to analyze if certain inputs satisfy boundary conditions is the abstract idea. The Applicant points to the Affidavit, which argues more than what is actually claimed. The Applicant does not actually point out what from the claims amounts to an improvement to technology and does not properly identify the additional elements. The Applicant/Affidavit state the improvement is involved with allocation of resources, but the claims do not actually recite any sort of actual/physical allocation of resources, but rather are merely making recommendations for a human user to determine what to do. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The Examiner again asserts that rerunning the analysis as new data becomes available further narrows the abstract idea. The Applicant again argues more than what is actually claimed. The Examiner also again asserts that the recited preconfigured data structures is not supported by Applicant’s originally filed specification and rejected under 35 USC 112a accordingly. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant again argues using McRO, which the Examiner has already addressed above. Please see the above response. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The Applicant again argues more than what is actually claimed and Mr Frank’s Affidavit does not change what is recited in the claims. As an Example there is no sort of cash flow even recited in the claims. Applicant fails to point out what in the claims amounts to an improvement and is mostly citing the same McRO arguments over and over. The Examiner has already addressed above. Please see the above response. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible in view of Example 42. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s claims are not related to example 42 in any way. There is no support for the recitations of data structures and even if there was it is recited at such a high level of generality that it would mere add the words apply it with the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106) because it amounts to generic storage of data to be used at a future time in a generic database (e.g. a non-volatile data store). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant copy and pastes the independent claim and alleges it is eligible without having any reasoning. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The Examiner notes that the supplemental responses submitted by Applicant have been addressed with the argument’s response above. The Applicant also does not properly tie the claims with the recited arguments and specifically notes that Example 39 is different from Example 47. The Examiner has clearly pointed out the limitations directed towards the abstract idea, what the additional elements are and why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and why the additional elements and remaining limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The Examiner has considered all arguments submitted by Applicant, via arguments, affidavit and the two supplemental responses. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter;
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In the instant case (Step 1), claims 16-21 are directed toward a process, claims 11-15 are directed toward a product, and claims 1-10 are directed toward a system; which are statutory categories of invention.
Additionally (Step 2A Prong One), the independent claims are directed toward a selective nature response system (SNRS) comprising: a user interface engine configured to generate a display of information at a user device and to receive user inputs; a non-volatile data store comprising a plurality of pre-event apportionment models (PEAMs), wherein the plurality of PEAMs is trained with historical environmental information and wherein each of the PEAMs is configured to generate a simulated resource response for a resource operator and a resource controller of a resource as a function of environmental parameters comprising factors associated with the simulated resource response, and user-defined parameters comprising boundary conditions of the simulated resource response; a factor generation engine comprising a trained natural factor processing model configured to generate the environmental parameters, wherein, in a configuration mode, at least some of the environmental parameters are selected to generate the plurality of PEAMs to be stored in the data store; an environmental monitoring engine configured to retrieve environmental information associated with the PEAMs, the environmental information relating to a physical location of the resource, wherein the plurality of PEAMs is trained with historical environmental information retrieved by the environmental monitoring engine; an environmental data package (EDP) engine configured to perform EDP generation operations configured to generate an EDP configured as a preconfigured dynamic data structure and prior to an actual environment dependent response of the resource, and an outcome generation engine configured to operate on the EDP to perform percentage generation operations subsequent to the EDP generation operations to automatically determine an updated environment dependent response for the resource operator and the resource controller based on actual environmental information at a percentage generation time subsequent to the actual environment dependent response of the resource, wherein the EDP generation operations comprise: generate a plurality of predicted resource responses by and corresponding to the PEAMs to the resource operator and the resource controller; display, using the user interface engine, the plurality of predicted resource responses for selection; receive, from the user interface engine, a selection of one of the PEAMs by the resource operator and the resource controller; generate, by the EDP engine, an environmental dynamic package (EDP) based on the selected PEAM and configured as the preconfigured dynamic data structure, wherein the EDP associates: a resource definition comprising a physical location of the resource, the resource controller, the resource operator, a user profile associated with the user device, an outcome multiplier comprising an outcome generation function defined by the selected PEAM and configured to generate continuous curves having at least one inflection point and that adapt in response to the environmental information while satisfying satisfy the boundary conditions, the outcome multiplier configured to dynamically generate attribution of a given resource response, and the environmental parameters as a function of the selected PEAM; and, store the EDP in non-volatile storage, wherein percentage generation operations at the percentage generation time subsequent to the actual environmental dependent response of the resource comprise: retrieve the EDP from the non-volatile storage; retrieve, by the environmental monitoring engine, actual environmental information corresponding to the environmental parameters associated with the EDP and replacing at least some of the historical environmental information; update the EDP to associate the actual environmental information; and then apply the environmental information retrieved by the environmental monitoring engine to the EDP to generate an updated the actual environment dependent response comprising an outcome for the resource controller and an outcome for the resource operator within the boundary conditions as a function of the outcome multiplier and the environmental information (Organizing Human Activity), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See MPEP 2106). The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims are directed toward the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are analyzing different models against environmental parameters and resources comprising factors and boundary conditions of physical locations by analyzing inflection points to determine predicted responses from resource operators that meet satisfaction of the conditions and applying an environmental dynamic package based on the resource operator selections and an outcome function to generate actual environmental dependent responses for the resource, which is managing how humans interact for the commercial purpose of managing crops. Applicant’s claims are running all the determinations on general purpose computers for a human to interpret the result.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-21 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, where any additional elements introduced are discussed below.
Step 2A Prong Two: In this application, even if not directed toward the abstract idea, the independent claims additionally recite “a selective nature response system (SNRS) comprising: a user interface engine configured to; at a user device; a non-volatile data store; a resource operator and a resource controller; a factor generation engine comprising a trained natural factor processing model configured to; stored in the data store; an environmental monitoring engine configured to; an environmental data package (EDP) engine configured to; an outcome generation engine configured to (claim 1)”; “computer program product (CPP) comprising a program of instructions tangibly embodied on a non-transitory computer readable medium wherein, when the instructions are executed on a processor (claim 11)”; “computer-implemented method performed by at least one processor (claim 16)”, which are additional elements that would not integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106) and are recited at such a high level of generality. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computer or other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology.
The Examiner further asserts the “trained natural factor processing model” of the independent claims is recited at such a high level of generality that it merely adds the words apply it with the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106).
In addition, dependent claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-21 further narrow the abstract idea and dependent claims 2, 5, 12, and 17 additionally recite “land operator (claim 2); land owner (claim 2); an authentication engine (claim 5); a request device (claims 5, 12, and 17)”, which are additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106).
The Examiner further asserts the “large language model” in claims 6, 13, and 18 is recited at such a high level of generality that they merely add the words apply it with the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106).
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106). Further, method; System; and Product Independent claims 1-21 recite “a selective nature response system (SNRS) comprising: a user interface engine configured to; at a user device; a non-volatile data store; a resource operator and a resource controller; a factor generation engine comprising a trained natural factor processing model configured to; stored in the data store; an environmental monitoring engine configured to; an environmental data package (EDP) engine configured to; an outcome generation engine configured to (claim 1)”; “computer program product (CPP) comprising a program of instructions tangibly embodied on a non-transitory computer readable medium wherein, when the instructions are executed on a processor (claim 11)”; “computer-implemented method performed by at least one processor (claim 16)”; however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraphs 0085-0093 and Figures 1-2. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In addition, claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-21 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims merely further define the data being analyzed and how the data is being analyzed. Similarly, claims 2, 5, 12, and 17 additionally recite “land operator (claim 2); land owner (claim 2); an authentication engine (claim 5); a request device (claims 5, 12, and 17)”, which are additional elements that do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claimed structure merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106). The additional limitations of the independent and dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner has considered the dependent claims in a full analysis including the additional limitations individually and in combination as analyzed in the independent claim(s). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 1-21: Claims 1-21 recite “a preconfigured dynamic data structure and prior to an actual environment dependent response of the resource”. Applicant’s specification makes no mention of any sort of data being preconfigured or anything being done prior to an actual environment dependent response of the resource. This is considered an introduction of new matter and rejected accordingly.
Regarding Claims 1-21: Claims 1-21 recite “generate, by the EDP engine, an environmental dynamic package (EDP) based on the selected PEAM and configured as the preconfigured dynamic data structure”. Applicant’s specification does not have support for the details regarding the data structures. This is considered an introduction of new matter and rejected accordingly.
Allowable over 35 USC 103
Claims 1-21 are allowable over the prior art, but remain rejected under §101 for the reasons set forth above. Independent claims 1, 11, and 16 disclose a system, product, and method for dynamic crop outcome computation and error control system.
Regarding a possible 103 rejection: The closest prior art of record is:
Morris II et al. (US 2016/0350671 A1) – which discloses dynamically updated predictive modeling of systems and processes.
Tuttle (US 2017/0228832 A1) – which discloses automated farming system and methods using specific modeling techniques.
Zyskowski et al. (US 2010/0306012 A1) – which discloses managing and predicting crop performance and making recommendations.
George (US 2024/0138283 A1) – which discloses a crop analysis system for determining what a human should do for optimizing crop growth.
The prior art of record neither teaches nor suggests all particulars of the limitations as recited in claims 1, 11, and 16, such as analyzing different models against environmental parameters and resources comprising factors and boundary conditions of physical locations to determine predicted responses from resource operators and applying an environmental dynamic package based on the resource operator selections and an outcome function to generate actual environmental dependent responses for the resource based on a percentage generation time. While individual features may be known per se, there is no teaching or suggestion absent applicants’ own disclosure to combine these features other than with impermissible hindsight and the combination/arrangement of features are not found in analogous art. Specifically the claimed “a selective nature response system (SNRS) comprising: a user interface engine configured to generate a display of information at a user device and to receive user inputs; a non-volatile data store comprising a plurality of pre-event apportionment models (PEAMs), wherein the plurality of PEAMs is trained with historical environmental information and wherein each of the PEAMs is configured to generate a simulated resource response for a resource operator and a resource controller of a resource as a function of environmental parameters comprising factors associated with the simulated resource response, and user-defined parameters comprising boundary conditions of the simulated resource response; a factor generation engine comprising a trained natural factor processing model configured to generate the environmental parameters, wherein, in a configuration mode, at least some of the environmental parameters are selected to generate the plurality of PEAMs to be stored in the data store; an environmental monitoring engine configured to retrieve environmental information associated with the PEAMs, the environmental information relating to a physical location of the resource, wherein the plurality of PEAMs is trained with historical environmental information retrieved by the environmental monitoring engine; an environmental data package (EDP) engine configured to perform EDP generation operations configured to generate an EDP configured as a preconfigured dynamic data structure and prior to an actual environment dependent response of the resource, and an outcome generation engine configured to operate on the EDP to perform percentage generation operations subsequent to the EDP generation operations to automatically determine an updated environment dependent response for the resource operator and the resource controller based on actual environmental information at a percentage generation time subsequent to the actual environment dependent response of the resource, wherein the EDP generation operations comprise: generate a plurality of predicted resource responses by and corresponding to the PEAMs to the resource operator and the resource controller; display, using the user interface engine, the plurality of predicted resource responses for selection; receive, from the user interface engine, a selection of one of the PEAMs by the resource operator and the resource controller; generate, by the EDP engine, an environmental dynamic package (EDP) based on the selected PEAM and configured as the preconfigured dynamic data structure, wherein the EDP associates: a resource definition comprising a physical location of the resource, the resource controller, the resource operator, a user profile associated with the user device, an outcome multiplier comprising an outcome generation function defined by the selected PEAM and configured to generate continuous curves having at least one inflection point and that adapt in response to the environmental information while satisfying satisfy the boundary conditions, the outcome multiplier configured to dynamically generate attribution of a given resource response, and the environmental parameters as a function of the selected PEAM; and, store the EDP in non-volatile storage, wherein percentage generation operations at the percentage generation time subsequent to the actual environmental dependent response of the resource comprise: retrieve the EDP from the non-volatile storage; retrieve, by the environmental monitoring engine, actual environmental information corresponding to the environmental parameters associated with the EDP and replacing at least some of the historical environmental information; update the EDP to associate the actual environmental information; and then apply the environmental information retrieved by the environmental monitoring engine to the EDP to generate an updated the actual environment dependent response comprising an outcome for the resource controller and an outcome for the resource operator within the boundary conditions as a function of the outcome multiplier and the environmental information (as required by independent claims 1, 11, and 16)”, thus rendering claims 1, 11, 16 and their dependent claims as allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, but not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure is listed on the attached PTO-892 and should be taken into account / considered by the Applicant upon reviewing this office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-0504. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BRIAN EPSTEIN can be reached on (571)-270-5389. 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.
/MATTHEW D HENRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625