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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 28, 2023 and May 31, 2024 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 14 use both “a specific console” and “the selected console” to refer to the same console. Examiner recommends using consistent terminology.
Claims 4-5 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims end in a semicolon instead of a period. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim does not end in a period. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 12, and 20 introduce two instances of “a console” in claim 1 lines 12 and 15, claim 12 lines 14 and 17, claim 20 lines 14 and 17. The claims do not distinguish between the two instances and therefore are indefinite because it cannot be determined how many consoles are required by the two instances of “a console.” For the purposes of compact prosecution, the second instance of “a console” has been interpreted to mean “the console.”
Claims 1 and 12 introduce two instances of “a service request” in claim 1 lines 14 and 15, and claim 13 lines 14 and 17, claim 20 lines 16 and 17. The claims do not distinguish between the two instances and therefore are indefinite because it cannot be determined how many service requests are required by the two instances of “a service request.” For the purposes of compact prosecution, the second instance of “a service request” has been interpreted to me “the service request.”
Claims 2-11 and 13-19 depend upon claims 1 or 12 and therefore inherit the above rejection of claims 1 or 12.
Claims 4 and 5 use the pronoun “you” which does not clearly point to a reference noun. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the pronoun “you” has been interpreted to mean “the requesting console.” Examiner notes that “you” typically refers to a person. Congress has excluded claims directed to or encompassing a human organism from eligibility. See MPEP 2105(I); The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA ), Pub. L. 112-29, sec. 33(a), 125 Stat. 284 (September 16, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 1:
Claims 1-11 recite a series of steps and therefore recite a process.
Claims 12-20 recite a combination of devices and therefore recite a machine.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2A – Prong 1:
Claims 1, 12, and 20, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea of managing players on a golf course, which is a method of organizing human activity and mental process. The claims recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities and following rules or instructions) by reciting instructions for managing golfers on a golf course. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). The claims recite a mental process because the identified idea contains limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) by reciting golfers interacting on a golf course. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The method of organizing human activity and mental process of “managing players on a golf course,” is recited by claiming the following limitations: associating consoles with a group, transmitting location information, storing locations, inputting a service request, receiving a service request, and responding to a service request. The mere nominal recitation of a network, a database, a console, a computing device, a non-transitory storage media, interface hardware, communications hardware, executing a software application, and golf course sensors does not take the claim of the method of organizing human activity or mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With regards to Claims 6-8, 10-11, 15-16, and 18-19, the claims further recite the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) by reciting the following limitations: providing rewards, requesting mobile refreshment services, providing refreshments, providing an administrator overview of all platform information, and inputing administrator requests.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2A – Prong 2:
Claims 1, 12, and 20 recite the additional elements: a network, a database, a console, a computing device, a non-transitory storage media, interface hardware, communications hardware, digital application platform, executing a software application, and golf course sensors. The network, database, console, computing device, non-transitory storage media, interface hardware, digital application platform, communications hardware, executing a software application, and golf course sensors limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The providing golf course sensor data step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering golf course data), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Taken individually these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Considering the limitations containing the judicial exception as well as the additional elements in the claim besides the judicial exception does not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim as a whole does not improve the functioning of a computer or improve other technology or improve a technical field. The claim as a whole is not implemented with a particular machine. The claim as a whole does not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state. The claim as a whole is not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of managing players on a golf course in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing golf course management process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2B:
Claims 1, 12, and 20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims recite a generic computer performing generic computer function by reciting a network, a database, digital application platform a computing device, a non-transitory storage media, interface hardware, communications hardware. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1341 (describing a “processor” as a generic computer component); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims reciting an “interface,” “network,” and a “database” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347–48 (discussing the same with respect to “data” and “memory”). The claims recite the following computer functions recognized by the courts as generic computer functions by reciting receiving and transmitting information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec; TLI Communications LLC; OIP Techs.; buySAFE, Inc.), processing information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) performing repetitive calculations, Flook; Bancorp Services), storing information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.; OIP Technologies). The specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the following additional elements because they are described in a manner that indicates the elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a): a network (Specification p. 3), a database (Specification p. 3), a console (Specification p. 4), a computing device (Specification p. 4), a non-transitory storage media (Specification p. 6), interface hardware (Specification p. 6), communications hardware (Specification p. 6), and golf course sensors (Specification p. 5). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2). The claims add the words “apply it” or words equivalent to “apply the abstract idea” such as instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer by reciting a network, a database, a console, digital application platform, a computing device, a non-transitory storage media, interface hardware, communications hardware, executing a software application, golf course sensors. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims recite instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer by providing a user interface, and responding to a user interface using the computer's ordinary ability to display and process data inputs. (See MPEP 2106.05(f) accessing information through a mobile interface Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co.; Generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location as performed by generic computer components, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.) The claims recite insignificant extrasolution activity (i.e. mere data gathering) by reciting providing golf course sensor data. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The claims limit the field of use by reciting a golf course. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations 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. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. See MPEP 2106.05(b). Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements alone, and in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
With regards to Claims 2 and 13, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Regarding claims 2 and 13, the specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the following additional elements because they are described in a manner that indicates the elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a): a server (Specification p. 3). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2). Claims 2 and 13 add the words “apply it” or words equivalent to “apply the abstract idea” such as instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer by reciting a server. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations 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. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. See MPEP 2106.05(b). Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Remaining Claims:
With regards to Claims 3-5, 9, 14 and 17, these claims merely add a degree of particularity to the limitations discussed above rather than adding additional elements capable of transforming the nature of the claimed subject matter. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations 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 provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 9-13, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vanslette (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2020/0234385 A1), hereinafter Vanslette.
Claim 1.
Vanslette discloses a method of managing play rates and flow for a golf course, comprising:
providing a digital application platform comprising a software application, a network, and a database (Vanslette [0045], [0047] network; [0053] software app; [0049], [0120] database);
providing one or more consoles each comprising a computing device, non-transitory storage media, interface hardware, and communications hardware (Vanslette [0171] computing devices 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20 are represented by example computing device 1000; [0172] computing device 1000 may include a memory, processors, presentation components, input/output ports, input/output components, and a power supply; [0174] nonvolatile memory; [0175] I/O ports include networking device);
configuring the one or more consoles to communicate using the digital application platform by executing the software application (Vanslette [0048], [0052] computing devices communicate over a telecommunications network; [0053], [0061] app);
associating at least one of the one or more consoles with a group of one or more players (Vanslette [0054], [0055], [0148] prior to starting the group registers with the club house);
transmitting the location of the group-associated consoles via the network (Vanslette [0046], [0057] GPS; [0058] the GPS locator is configured to determine and exchange location data of the sensor device with the MCU for transmission by the transceiver to venue gateway device);
storing the locations of the group-associated consoles within the database (Vanslette [0049], [0056] data management tool collects, aggregates, analyzes, and provides metrics using location data wherein the data management tool includes a database);
providing a user input on a console via the software application requesting a service through the digital application platform (Vanslette [0062] pushing sensor device button initiates a call to the venue gateway device);
receiving a service request through the digital application platform (Vanslette [0062] pushing sensor device button initiates a call to the venue gateway device requesting information);
providing a user response to a service request on a console via the software application through the digital application platform (Vanslette [0062] requested information is subsequently received from the venue gateway device for display on the sensor device).
Claim 2.
Vanslette discloses all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Vanslette discloses:
wherein the digital application platform further comprises a server and the database is stored on non-transitory digital media within the server (Vanslette [0171], [0174] server).
Claim 9.
Vanslette discloses all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Vanslette discloses:
wherein another one or more consoles is associated with an administrator of the digital application platform (Vanslette [0040], [0111] administrator; [0050], [0056], [0063] inform users of venue usage, pace of play, traffic, potential traffic, bottlenecks, visibility to all patrons, staff and security within the physical space of the activity venue, maintenance request, outstanding maintenance, ideal locations/items for maintenance, security or other analytics).
Claim 10.
Vanslette discloses all the elements of claim 9, as shown above. Additionally, Vanslette discloses:
wherein the one or more consoles associated with an administrator is provided with an overview of all user inputs, service requests, and user responses within the digital application platform (Vanslette [0056] data management tool can aggregate all the location and time related data for both patrons and staff/operators throughout the venue including task progress by staff).
Claim 11.
Vanslette discloses all the elements of claim 10, as shown above. Additionally, Vanslette discloses:
wherein the one or more consoles associated with an administrator may issue a service request on behalf of one or more other consoles (Vanslette [0056], [0065], [0070], [0071], [0075], [0080], [0087], [0100] assign patrons to gaps or assign staff members to perform maintenance tasks within the identified gaps; [0092] group assignment).
Claim 12.
Vanslette discloses all the elements of claim 12 as shown above in claim 1.
Claim 13.
Vanslette discloses all the elements of claim 13 as shown above in claim 2.
Claim 17.
Vanslette discloses all the elements of claim 17 as shown above in claim 9.
Claim 18.
Vanslette discloses all the elements of claim 18 as shown above in claim 10.
Claim 19.
Vanslette discloses all the elements of claim 19 as shown above in claim 11.
Claim 20.
Vanslette discloses a system for managing play rates and flow for a golf course, comprising:
a digital application platform comprising a software application, a network, a digitally connected golf course, and a database (Vanslette [0045], [0047] network; [0053] software app; [0049], [0120] database; [0055] sensor device attached to a golf flag; [0095] sprinkler system sensors; [0110] physical sensors on the golf course);
one or more consoles each comprising a computing device, non-transitory storage media, interface hardware, and communications hardware (Vanslette [0171] computing devices 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20 are represented by example computing device 1000; [0172] computing device 1000 may include a memory, processors, presentation components, input/output ports, input/output components, and a power supply; [0174] nonvolatile memory; [0175] I/O ports include networking device);
the one or more consoles being configured to communicate using the digital application platform by executing the software application (Vanslette [0048], [0052] computing devices communicate over a telecommunications network; [0053], [0061] app);
at least one of the one or more consoles is associated with a group of one or more players (Vanslette [0054], [0055], [0148] prior to starting the group registers with the club house);
each of the one or more consoles continuously transmitting its location to the software application platform via the network (Vanslette [0046], [0057] GPS; [0058] the GPS locator is configured to determine and exchange location data of the sensor device with the MCU for transmission by the transceiver to venue gateway device);
wherein the locations of the group-associated consoles are stored within the database (Vanslette [0049], [0056] data management tool collets, aggregates, analyzes, and provides metrics using location data wherein the data management tool includes a database);
wherein the user may request a service by user input on a console via the software application through the digital application platform (Vanslette [0062] pushing sensor device button initiates a call to the venue gateway device);
wherein the requested service is received through the digital application platform (Vanslette [0062] pushing sensor device button initiates a call to the venue gateway device requesting information);
wherein a user may respond to a received service request on a console via the software application of the digital application platform (Vanslette [0062] requested information is subsequently received from the venue gateway device for display on the sensor device);
wherein the digitally connected golf course comprises sensors, one or more computing devices, and communications hardware (Vanslette [0055] sensor device attached to a golf flag; [0095] sprinkler system sensors; [0110] physical sensors on the golf course);
wherein the digitally connected golf course is configured to provide sensor data to the digital application platform by communicating over the network (Vanslette [0055] sensor device attached to a golf flag; [0062] distance to pin sensor; [0095] sprinkler system sensors; [0110] physical sensors on the golf course).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claim(s) 3-6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanslette in view of Kline (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2015/0353008 A1), hereinafter Kline.
Claim 3.
Vanslette discloses all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. However, Vanslette does not disclose:
wherein the service requested by the provided user input is sent to a specific console associated with a group of one or more players selected as a part of the provided user input (Kline [0057] The message receiver may reject messages from vehicles ahead of the front proximal vehicle(s) to have an orderly system of passing messages from vehicle to vehicle as described herein where messages are passed to a vehicle directly behind a vehicle passing the message),
The known technique communicating passing messages between nearby vehicles of Kline, as shown above, is applicable to the system of Vanslette as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are implementing vehicle communication systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of communicating passing messages between nearby vehicles of Kline to the vehicle communication system of Vanslette would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Kline to the teaching of Vanslette would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such communicating passing messages between nearby vehicles features into vehicle communication systems. Further, applying communicating passing messages between nearby vehicles to Vanslette, would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more efficient communication between nearby persons who may not otherwise have a communication channel to nearby parties.
Vanslette, as modified by Kline, teaches:
the service request is only received by the selected console (Vanslette [0062] pushing sensor device button initiates a call to the venue gateway device requesting information and the requested information is subsequently received from the venue gateway device for display on the sensor device), and
the user response must be provided by the selected console (Vanslette [0062] pushing sensor device button initiates a call to the venue gateway device requesting information and the requested information is subsequently received from the venue gateway device for display on the sensor device).
Claim 4.
Vanslette in view of Kline teaches all the elements of claim 3, as shown above. Additionally, Vanslette discloses:
wherein the specified console is associated with a group of one or more players that are ahead of you and the service requested is for your group to play-through the hole (Vanslette [0169] send notifications to players to let a particular player/device play through);
Claim 5.
Vanslette in view of Kline teaches all the elements of claim 3, as shown above. Additionally, Vanslette discloses:
wherein the specified console is associated with a group of one or more players that are behind you and the service requested is to request whether their group would like to play-through the hole (Vanslette [0169] send notifications to players to let a particular player/device play through);
Claim 6.
Vanslette in view of Kline teaches all the elements of claim 3, as shown above. Additionally, Vanslette discloses:
wherein one or more responses to the service request are associated with one or more rewards and the selected console is provided the rewards associated with their response (Vanslette [0076] provide incentives for keeping on pace or ahead of pace).
Claim 14.
Vanslette in view of Kline teaches all the elements of claim 14 as shown above in claim 3.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorjestani et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2015/0356501 A1), hereinafter Gorjestani.
Claim 7.
Vanslette discloses all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. However, Vanslette does not disclose:
wherein another one or more consoles is associated with a mobile refreshment unit (Gorjestani [0021] delivery mobile computing device),
the service requested by the provided user input is sent to the mobile refreshment unit console (Gorjestani [0025] customer may provide the order),
the service request is only received by the mobile refreshment unit console (Gorjestani [0027] select candidate delivery workers; [0028] provide opportunity to handle delivery of user’s order to selected worker), and
the mobile refreshment unit console provides the response to the service request (Gorjestani [0031], [0032] accept delivery).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include golfer order delivery as taught by Gorjestani to the concessions of Vanslette (Vanslette [0040]), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in the art of providing services to golfers, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that only routine engineering would be required to incorporate the above features and yield predictable result of Vanslette’s system with the improved functionality to provide concessions directly to groups of players.
Claim 8.
Vanslette in view of Gorjestani teaches all the elements of claim 7, as shown above. Additionally, Gorjestani teaches:
wherein the requested service can include providing refreshment to one or more other consoles associated with groups of one or more players selected during the user input (Gorjestani [0042] confirm the order has been delivered).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the teachings of Gorjestani in the system of Vanslette for the same reasons discussed above in claim 7.
Claim 15.
Vanslette in view of Gorgestani teaches all of the elements of claim 15 as shown above in claim 7.
Claim 16.
Vanslette in view of Gorgestani teaches all of the elements of claim 16 as shown above in claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT M TUNGATE whose telephone number is (571)431-0763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 - 4:30 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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/SCOTT M TUNGATE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628