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 .
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102/103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: “The route comparison apparatus of amended claim 1 requires the use of the recited system components to perform specific processing steps that cannot be practically performed in the human mind or using pen and paper. Thus, Applicant submits that the amended claims, including amended claim 1 and analogously amended claims 9-10 and their associated dependent claims, are patent eligible under Step 2A, Prong One of the patent eligibility analysis.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite a mental process that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper. Each of the determining and computing steps are broadly claimed, such that a human could perform them. For instance, the claims do not preclude a human from determining only two target locations within a width direction of the passageway, nor do they preclude a human from determining a route along the passageway through the target locations while avoiding other people. Further, there are no time constraints on the claim limitations, such that a human could perform the determination and computation steps in any amount of time, disconnected from any real-world application. Therefore, the claims recite a mental process.
Applicant further argues: “Even if, arguendo, claim 1 recited a judicial exception, the claim as a whole integrates any alleged judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, amended claim 1 recites the step of "output[ting] preferable route information indicating the computed preferable route" and "display[ing], at a user terminal, the preferable route information." The output and display provide concrete technical results rather than merely reciting an abstract idea in isolation. Applicant submits that amended claim 1 thus integrates any alleged judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the claim and results in a practical application, and that the amended claims are also patent-eligible under Step 2A, Prong Two of the patent eligibility analysis.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Mere outputting or displaying of data, recited at a high level of generality, amounts only to post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Applicant further argues: “Furthermore, the amended claims, such as claim 24, include a technical improvement that provides dynamic route calculation using surveillance cameras chosen based on real-time changes in the user's current location, rather than using a static measurement from one fixed surveillance camera. Applicant submits that the amended claims provide a specific technical solution to a technical problem, and meet the "significantly more" requirement, and are therefore patent eligible under Step 2B of the patent eligibility analysis.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. The mere displaying of data (analogous to the outputting a route here) is a well understood, routine, and conventional function.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The independent claims each recite that the processor will “compute…a preferable route, on the passageway, satisfying a condition” (emphasis added). Perhaps a different preposition would be more appropriate here? Such as “along”, “within”, “through”, or even “in” the passageway. Examiner will defer to Applicant even if opting not to make any change.
Appropriate correction is suggested.
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 1-4, 6-7, and 9-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 1 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim 1 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a process which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 1 recites:
A route computation apparatus comprising:
at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions;
and at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions to:
acquire people distribution information indicating a distribution state of persons in a passageway through which a user travels;
determine a plurality of target locations along a stretching direction of the passageway;
determine, in each of the plurality of target locations, what point of the passageway in a width direction is passed;
compute, based on the people distribution information, a preferable route, on the passageway, satisfying a condition defined based on a distance to another person, the preferable route being a route on the passageway indicating a travel location in a width direction of the passageway, wherein:
the preferable route is computed by connecting passing points determined in each of the plurality of target locations along the stretching direction of the passageway, in each of a plurality of points along a travel direction of the passageway;
and the condition is that a reference retention state where a distance to another person is equal to or more than a threshold value is retained at equal to or more than a reference level;
output preferable route information indicating the computed preferable route;
and display, at a user terminal, the preferable route information.
The highlighted portion of claim 1 above is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. It merely consists of determining a plurality of locations along a passageway, noting their width, and then computing a preferable route through the target locations, where the preferable route avoids a person by a threshold distance. This is equivalent to a person determining the best route to take through a hallway of people by determining (unoccupied) points in the hallway and imagining a route through the points that stays a distance away from other people. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). As such, a person, given a people distribution information could compute an ideal route through an area. The mere nominal recitation that the process is being executed by a computer does not take the limitation out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other 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.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 1 recites:
A route computation apparatus comprising:
at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions;
and at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions to:
acquire people distribution information indicating a distribution state of persons in a passageway through which a user travels;
determine a plurality of target locations along a stretching direction of the passageway;
determine, in each of the plurality of target locations, what point of the passageway in a width direction is passed;
compute, based on the people distribution information, a preferable route, on the passageway, satisfying a condition defined based on a distance to another person, the preferable route being a route on the passageway indicating a travel location in a width direction of the passageway, wherein:
the preferable route is computed by connecting passing points determined in each of the plurality of target locations along the stretching direction of the passageway, in each of a plurality of points along a travel direction of the passageway;
and the condition is that a reference retention state where a distance to another person is equal to or more than a threshold value is retained at equal to or more than a reference level;
output preferable route information indicating the computed preferable route;
and display, at a user terminal, the preferable route information.
The highlighted portion of claim 1 above does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. As noted above, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. In the instant case, the process is executed via a processor, i.e. a computer. Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer, which is indicative of the abstract idea having not been integrated into a practical application.
The acquiring steps recited in the claim are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering an electronic representation of an area or navigational data or planned path data), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The outputting and displaying steps are also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the generating steps) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The one or more data networks, one or more processors, one or more memories storing computer readable instructions, and the computer readable storage medium comprising computer-readable instructions merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general-purpose computing environment. The one or more data networks, one or more processors, one or more memories storing computer readable instructions, and the computer readable storage medium comprising computer-readable instructions are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the generating steps.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 1 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the steps are performed using anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere performance of an action is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Independent claims 9 and 10 have similar limitations to claim 1 above, and are therefore ineligible for similar reasons.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-7, and 11-24 are likewise ineligible. They either describe mere data gathering (such as in claims 2-4, 11-13, and 16-18), additional mental process steps (claims 6, 14, 19, 21-24), or further post-solution activity (claims 7, 15, 20, and 24). Thus, the dependent claims are likewise ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1-4, 6-7, and 9-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20220282980 by Winarski et al. (hereinafter “Winarski”), further in view of US20230135554 by Beaurepaire et al. (hereinafter “Beaurepaire”).
Regarding claim 1, Winarski teaches A route computation apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions to: acquire people distribution information indicating a distribution state of persons see for example paragraph [0024], where the system determines the crowds in an area. See also paragraph [0041], where the system acquires the presences of people in an area along a route.
determine a plurality of target locations along a stretching direction see for example paragraphs [0046]-[0049], where the system detects people in the vicinity and generates a route through unoccupied spaces, where the determined unoccupied spaces within an area read on target locations. The unoccupied spaces are determined in two dimensions, such that they are both determined along a stretching direction and in a width direction.
compute, based on the people distribution information, a preferable route, on the see for example paragraph [0049], where the system generates a route based on the predicted locations of people and maintaining a specified separation distance.
wherein: the preferable route is computed by connecting passing points determined in each of the plurality of target locations along the stretching direction see again [0049], where the system generates a route that avoids people. See also paragraph [0080], where the route generation model avoids being within a threshold distance of another person along the route, reading on passing points.
and the condition is that a reference retention state where a distance to another person is equal to or more than a threshold value is retained at equal to or more than a reference level; see again paragraph [0049], where “The generated travel route is made up of travel route locations along the travel route that are expected to be more than a specified distance from the predicted future locations of the other people.”
output preferable route information indicating the computed preferable route; and display, at a user terminal, the preferable route information. See for example paragraph [0050], where the route is provided to a user.
Winarski does not explicitly teach creating a route through a passageway.
However, Beaurepaire teaches creating a route through a passageway. See for example paragraph [0036], where Beaurepaire routes through a hallway while avoiding people.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the route determining system of Winarski with the passageway route system of Beaurepaire with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows users to route through indoor spaces while avoiding contact with other individuals who might be infectious.
Claims 9 and 10 have similar limitations to claim 1 above, and are therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 2, Winarski teaches wherein: the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to analyze an image capturing . See again for example paragraph [0024], where the system determines the crowds in an area, including based on cameras. See also paragraph [0041], where the system acquires the presences of people in an area along a route based in part of cameras.
Winarski does not explicitly teach a passageway.
However, Beaurepaire teaches a passageway. See for example paragraph [0036], where Beaurepaire routes through a hallway while avoiding people.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the route determining system of Winarski with the passageway route system of Beaurepaire with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows users to route through indoor spaces while avoiding contact with other individuals who might be infectious.
Claims 11 and 16 have similar limitations to claim 2 above, and are therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 3, Winarski teaches wherein: the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to analyze an image capturing the passageway, and generate, based on an analysis result, the people distribution information indicating a distribution state of persons . See again for example paragraph [0024], where the system determines the crowds in an area, including based on cameras. See also paragraph [0041], where the system acquires the presences of people in an area along a route based in part of cameras. Finally, see for example paragraph [0048], where the computation can be based on historical data.
Winarski does not explicitly teach a passageway.
However, Beaurepaire teaches a passageway. See for example paragraph [0036], where Beaurepaire routes through a hallway while avoiding people.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the route determining system of Winarski with the passageway route system of Beaurepaire with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows users to route through indoor spaces while avoiding contact with other individuals who might be infectious.
Claims 12 and 17 have similar limitations to claim 3 above, and are therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 4, Winarksi teaches wherein: the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to acquire the people distribution information indicating a past tendency of a distribution state of persons . See for example paragraph [0048], where the computation can be based on historical data.
Winarski does not explicitly teach a passageway.
However, Beaurepaire teaches a passageway. See for example paragraph [0036], where Beaurepaire routes through a hallway while avoiding people.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the route determining system of Winarski with the passageway route system of Beaurepaire with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows users to route through indoor spaces while avoiding contact with other individuals who might be infectious.
Claims 13 and 18 have similar limitations to claim 4 above, and are therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 6, Winarski teaches wherein: the condition is that a reference retention rate is equal to or more than the reference level, the reference retention rate being a ratio, to a number of other persons passing the user, of a number of other persons in which the reference retention state where a distance to the user is equal to or more than the threshold value is retained, a ratio, to a movement distance, of a distance to a point in which the reference retention state where a distance to another person is equal to or more than the threshold value is retained, or a ratio, to a movement time, of a time in which the reference retention state where a distance to another person is equal to or more than the threshold value is retained. In addition to paragraph [0049], see also paragraph [0022], where the system of suggests a route where the crowd density doesn’t exceed a predetermined threshold value, and otherwise changes the route; paragraph [0055] describes something similar. See also for example paragraph [0024], where the “crowd density” includes number of people per square meter. Thus, the crowd pressure/density (reference retention rate) is equal to or more than the reference level, and that crowd pressure/density at least reads on a ratio, to a number of other persons passing the user, of a number of other persons in which the reference retention state where a distance to the user is equal to or more than a threshold value is retained.
Claims 14 and 19 have similar limitations to claim 6 above, and are therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 7, Winarski teaches wherein: the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to output the preferable route information further indicating the reference retention rate of the preferable route. See again for example paragraphs [0056] or [0024], where the crowd pressure information is output to the user.
Claims 15 and 20 have similar limitations to claim 7 above, and are therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 21, Winarski teaches wherein: the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to determine, as a passing point in each of the plurality of target locations, a point where a distance to another person can be ensured at equal to or more than the threshold value. See again [0049], where the system generates a route that avoids people. See also paragraph [0080], where the route generation model avoids being within a threshold distance of another person along the route, reading on passing point.
Regarding claim 22, Winarski teaches wherein: the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to, in a case where there are a plurality of points where the distance to another person can be ensured at equal to or more than the threshold value, determine the passing point based on a distance from a passing point of a neighboring target location. See for example paragraphs [0046]-[0049], where the system detects people in the vicinity and generates a route through unoccupied spaces, where the determined unoccupied spaces within an area read on target locations. See also paragraph [0053], where the system maximizes the distances from others, reading on determine the passing point based on a distance from a passing point of a neighboring target location.
Regarding claim 23, Winarski teaches wherein: the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to determine the passing point in such a way as to satisfy a condition in that a distance in the width direction . See again [0049], where the system generates a route that avoids people. See also paragraph [0080], where the route generation model avoids being within a threshold distance of another person.
Winarski does not explicitly teach creating a route through a passageway.
However, Beaurepaire teaches creating a route through a passageway. See for example paragraph [0036], where Beaurepaire routes through a hallway while avoiding people.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the route determining system of Winarski with the passageway route system of Beaurepaire with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows users to route through indoor spaces while avoiding contact with other individuals who might be infectious.
Regarding claim 24, Winarski teaches wherein: in response to a movement of a user that changes a current location of the user, the at least one processor is further configured to determine a surveillance camera capturing an image of the current location of the user after the movement, analyze a surveillance camera image generated by the surveillance camera, and newly generates people distribution information. See for example paragraphs [0053]-[0055], where the navigation system operates in real-time based on vision systems. See also paragraphs [0050]-[0051], where the system updates as the user moves.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US20220383749 by Ishikawa et al. teaching navigation by using an occupancy grid map (where cells could read on target points in two dimensions) and avoiding pedestrians by a threshold safety buffer.
US20210232210 by Noris et al. teaching generating paths through an indoor environment.
US20220093277 by Scanlin teaching route detection of people within a building.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JORDAN THOMAS SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0522. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/JORDAN T SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights