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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 12/05/2024. Claims 1 - 9 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2022-092949, filed on 06/08/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/05/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 – 6, 8 - 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The Examiner has identified the system in Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 1 recites the limitations of (additional elements emphasized in bold and are considered to be parsed from the remaining abstract idea):
An agricultural management system comprising:
a server configured or programmed to obtain implement information concerning a plurality of types of implements from a plurality of users and store the obtained implement information;
and a processor configured or programmed to set a size of an alert zone around a first implement connected with a work vehicle; wherein
the processor is configured or programmed to:
obtain identification information which identifies the first implement;
retrieve implement information corresponding to the identification information from the server; and
set the size of the alert zone based on the retrieved implement information.
which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as a Mental process (concept performed in the human mind) but for the recitation of generic computer elements. For example, a person could mentally obtain the implement information and based on the type of implement, judge an alert zone based on the type of implement and how dangerous that implement can be.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong II, this judicial exception is not practically integrated. The claim recites the additional elements of “a server” & “a processor” multiple times. These elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2B, the aforementioned additional elements are all generic computer elements have been held to be not significantly more than the abstract idea by Alice. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of using the processors to receive information, make decisions, and supply instructions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claims 2, 4, 8, 9 further define characteristics of the system. However, these characteristics do not add limitations that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are therefore also rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Claims 3, 5 - 6 recite limitations that include calculating, changing, sensing which can also be performed in the human mind and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, these claims are also rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Claim 7 recites the limitation of “stoppage of work of the first implement; or” & “slowdown of the work of the first implement”, which does integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This integration renders this claim as eligible.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3 – 5, 7, & 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20190147315A1 (hereinafter, “Okamura”), and further in view of US20060293856A1 (hereinafter, “Foessel”).
9. Regarding claim 1, Okamura teaches an agricultural management system comprising ([0111] Fig. 6): Okamura teaches on a management system as shown in figure 6.
a server configured or programmed to obtain implement information concerning a plurality of types of implements from a plurality of users and store the obtained implement information; and ([0140] – [0143], [0183] – [0188] Fig. 8 & 13) Okamura teaches a server (15) that can store different working devices (3) and working vehicles (2). The working device (3), working portion, being a part of a working vehicle (2) that performs the actual work. These types of working vehicles (2) and working devices (3) can be registered into the server (15) via a RFID tag (10) or a code providing part (16). The type of device information, identifying information, and user information [0184] – [0186].
10. Okamura further does not explicitly teach a processor configured or programmed to set a size of an alert zone around a first implement connected with a work vehicle; wherein
However, Foessel in the same field of endeavor, teaches a processor configured or programmed to set a size of an alert zone around a first implement connected with a work vehicle; wherein ([0068] Fig. 8) A data processor (12) is taught in Foessel. Foessel also teaches on an implement safety zone (182) that is connected to a work vehicle (192).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Okamura with the teachings of Foessel, to further prevent any injury or accident from occurring.
11. Okamura teaches the processor is configured or programmed to:
obtain identification information which identifies the first implement [0052] – [0053]; Okamura doesn’t explicitly recite a processor, but it does mention certain embodiments that would imply that a processor is present such as a control device (12d), RFID reader (11), and a communication device (12e) which would require a processor. An RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) tag (10) is on a working device (3) (implement) to identify information of the working device (3).
retrieve implement information corresponding to the identification information from the server; and [0141] Okamura describes a server (15) where information can be sent and retrieved. A mobile terminal (13) transmits identifying information to the server (15) and the server obtains and stores that information as work results linked to a specific working device (3) and working vehicle (2). This means that the server (15) is designed to received and have data be retrieved for later usage due to the enabling of later access to those work records.
12. Okamura teaches …based on the retrieved implement information [0141]. Okamura describes a server (15) where information can be sent and retrieved. A mobile terminal (13) transmits identifying information to the server (15) and the server obtains and stores that information as work results linked to a specific working device (3) and working vehicle (2). This means that the server (15) is designed to received and have data be retrieved for later usage due to the enabling of later access to those work records.
However, Foessel in the same field of endeavor, teaches set the size of the alert zone… [0067] – [0069]. Foessel determines a size and shape of a safety zone (182) based on the implement being used whether it is a harvesting head, a mower, a plow, a scraper, a planter, a cutter, a harvester, a sprayer, or otherwise. This implement safety zone (182) extends around and in front of the implement based on the implement’s geometry and use which effectively adjusts the size and shape of the safety zone (182) depending on the implement attached and how the implement interacts with obstacles or bystanders.
Okamura and Foessel are analogous art because Okamura teaches on a server where information can be sent and retrieved. This information pertaining to implement information but Okamura uses the term working device instead while Foessel teaches on creating a safety zone size around the implement being used. A person of ordinary skill would have a motivation to combine Okamura’s server usage with Foessel’s safety zone concept because the combination solves technical and operational problems in a predictable way. When an implement is attached, the system already needs to identify that implement (RFID code). The vehicle already contains a processor/control unit capable of receiving external data so using the server taught in Okamura to store and return implement specific safety zone parameters is a natural extension that eliminates error prone manual configuration. Not to mention that telematics and remote profile management are already common in modern agricultural equipment.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Okamura with the teachings of Foessel, to have a set safety zone size for a specific implement to help ensure the safety of the pedestrians.
13. Regarding claim 7, Okamura does not explicitly teach the agricultural management system of claim 1, further comprising:
a second sensor to sense the set alert zone and output sensor data; and
a controller configured or programmed to determine whether or not a human is present in the set alert zone based on the sensor data output from the second sensor and, when the controller determines that a human is present in the set alert zone, the controller is configured or programmed to control at least one of the following operations:
issuance of a warning;
stoppage of work of the first implement;
or slowdown of the work of the first implement.
However, Foessel in the same field of endeavor, teaches the agricultural management system of claim 1, further comprising:
a second sensor to sense the set alert zone and output sensor data; and [0017], [0028], [0047], [0063] Foessel teaches a sensing system (10) which may contain one or more sensors. It is implicit that a second sensor may be present in this sensing system (10). This sensing system (10) is used to create and redefine the safety zones (182) by creating one or more occupancy grids or matrices which is based on the output of sensor data [0017], [0028]. Therefore, a second sensor within the sensing system (10) may sense the alert zone and output sensor data to create this safety zone (182) as well as refine and update the safety zone (182) [0047], [0063].
a controller configured or programmed to determine whether or not a human is present in the set alert zone based on the sensor data output from the second sensor and, when the controller determines that a human is present in the set alert zone, the controller is configured or programmed to control at least one of the following operations [0045], [0064] – [0065]: Since the sensing system (10) is what creates the safety zones (182). The sensing system (10) can also detect bystanders within these safety zones (182).
issuance of a warning;
stoppage of work of the first implement [0064] – [0065], [0068]; Stoppage of the vehicle (192) may occur. No explicit recitation of “stopping work of the implement” is mentioned but we can infer that because these safety zones (182) are meant to protect bystanders from being harmed if a bystander is within these zones, if the vehicle (192) once it detects a bystander within a safety zone (182) will stop or be restricted from approaching closer, then it is inherent that the implement will do the same and stop its usage once a bystander is detected that is within range of the safety zone (182).
or slowdown of the work of the first implement.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Okamura with the teachings of Foessel, to further ensure the safety of bystanders by stopping the implement from operating.
14. Regarding claim 9, Okamura teaches the agricultural management system of claim 1, wherein the processor is provided in or on the work vehicle [0052] – [0053]; Okamura doesn’t explicitly recite a processor, but it does mention certain embodiments that would imply that a processor is present inside of the working vehicle (2) such as a control device (12d), RFID reader (11), and a communication device (12e) which would require a processor. An RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) tag (10) is on a working device (3) (implement) to identify information of the working device (3).
the processor is configured or programmed to request the implement information corresponding to the identification information from the server [0185] – [0188]; The working device (3) can be requested and obtained from server (15) from the RFID tag (10) which contains user information, device information, and identifying information.
the server is configured or programmed to output the implement information requested by the processor; and [0185] – [0188] The server (15) can output the corresponding working device (3) information from the RFID tag (10) when a user requests it.
the processor is configured or programmed to obtain the implement information output from the server. As mentioned above, a processor is inherently present in order to have the server (15) output information relating to the working device (3).
Claim(s) 2 - 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20190147315A1 (hereinafter, “Okamura”), and further in view of US20060293856A1 (hereinafter, “Foessel”), and further in view of US20120109520A1 (hereinafter, “Hood”).
16. Regarding claim 2, Okamura does not explicitly teach the agricultural management system of claim 1, wherein the implement information corresponding to the identification information includes size information indicative of a size of the first implement; and
the processor is configured or programmed to set the size of the alert zone based on the size information.
Hood teaches the agricultural management system of claim 1, wherein the implement information corresponding to the identification information includes size information indicative of a size of the first implement; and [TABLE-US-00001], [0018] – [0019] Hood teaches on obtaining agricultural implement information using a device called a Blue Box. TABLE-US-00001 shows all the values that can be obtained by this Blue Box. One of the values being “overall width of implement” which constitutes size information of an implement. The Blue Box gathers the size of an implement along with other information that identifies this implement as shown in TABLE-US-00001.
Okamura as modified by Hood does not explicitly teach the processor is configured or programmed to set the size of the alert zone based on the size information.
However, Foessel teaches the processor is configured or programmed to set the size of the alert zone based on the size information [0067] – [0069]. A data processor (12) is taught in Foesell. Foessel can determine a size and shape of a safety zone (182) based on the implement being used whether it is a harvesting head, a mower, a plow, a scraper, a planter, a cutter, a harvester, a sprayer, or otherwise. This implement safety zone (182) extends around and in front of the implement based on the implement’s geometry and use which effectively adjusts the size and shape of the safety zone (182) depending on the implement attached and how the implement interacts with obstacles or bystanders.
Hood and Foessel are analogous art because Hood teaches on recording the size of a implement attached to a agricultural machine while Foessel teaches on creating safety zones around an implement. One of ordinary skill would have the motivation to combine to ensure the safety of others based on the size of the implement. Having the size of the implement pre-recorded in the device that connects to an agricultural implement along with other identifying information with Foessel that creates safety zones of an implement would solve the problem of manual configuration from occurring due to the size being recorded digitally by the device. Foessel contains a processor already so implementing both together would create predictable results that help with the safety of bystanders.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Hood and Foessel, to modify the teachings of Okamura to include the teachings of Hood and Foessel, to more accurately generate safety zones around an implement based on the size of the implement.
17. Regarding claim 3, Okamura teaches the agricultural management system of claim 2, wherein the processor is configured or programmed to:
calculate a position of at least a portion of an external shape of the first implement connected with the work vehicle based on the size information; and ([0065] – [0067], [0081] – [0085] Fig. 4A – 5B) The position of the working device (3) (implement) is calculated and shown in relation to the working vehicle (2).
However, Okamura does not explicitly teach set the size of the alert zone based on the calculated position of the at least a portion of the external shape of the first implement.
However, Foessel teaches set the size of the alert zone based on the calculated position of the at least a portion of the external shape of the first implement ([0067] – [0069] Fig. 7 – 9). Foessel determines a size and shape of a safety zone (182) based on the implement being used whether it is a harvesting head, a mower, a plow, a scraper, a planter, a cutter, a harvester, a sprayer, or otherwise. All these implements have different positional points on the vehicle (192) it is attached to. This implement safety zone (182) extends around and in front of the implement based on the implement’s geometry (external shape), position, and use which effectively adjusts the size and shape of the safety zone (182) depending on the implement attached and how the implement interacts with obstacles or bystanders.
Okamura and Foessel are analogous art because Okamura teaches on calculating a position of the working device (implement) that is connected to the working vehicle while Foessel teaches on setting a size of a safety zone based on this calculated positioning of the implement on the agricultural machine. It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the teachings of Okamura with Foessel to extend a safety zone in accordance with the positional teachings of Okamura to account for extra hazards that may occur due to the positioning of the implement. Both are accounting for safety so therefore, combining both would yield predictable results when it comes to safety.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Foessel to modify the teachings of Okamura to include the teachings of Foessel, to further account for the position of the implement when generating these safety zones.
18. Regarding claim 4, Okamura does not explicitly teach the agricultural management system of claim 3, wherein the processor is configured or programmed to set a range of a predetermined distance from the calculated position of the at least a portion of the external shape of the first implement as the alert zone.
However, Foessel in the same field of endeavor, teaches the agricultural management system of claim 3, wherein the processor is configured or programmed to set a range of a predetermined distance from the calculated position of the at least a portion of the external shape of the first implement as the alert zone ([0067] – [0069] Fig. 7 – 9). Foessel teaches generating a safety zone (182) that is defined relative to an implement attached to a vehicle (192), not just the vehicle body itself. Foessel explicitly states an implement safety zone (182) that is a region surrounding the implement which figures 7 – 9 show. This safety zone is spatially related to the implement’s geometry and positioning. This implicitly requires that logic of “setting a range of a predetermined distance from a position and external shape of an implement”. An implement safety zone cannot be surrounding the implement unless the system knows where the implement is and defines a spatial zone around it beforehand. Therefore, Foessel teaches the same functional concept. Such calculations are inherent where a zone or range is defined beforehand to set a predetermined distance relative to the positioning of the implement on the vehicle (192).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Okamura with the teachings of Foessel, to have a safety zone set based on the positioning of the implement to further ensure safety due to the potential movement or how the implement interacts with the environment.
19. Regarding claim 5, Okamura does not explicitly teach the agricultural management system of claim 4, wherein the processor is configured or programmed to change the predetermined distance according to a type of the first implement connected with the work vehicle.
However, Foessel in the same field of endeavor, teaches the agricultural management system of claim 4, wherein the processor is configured or programmed to change the predetermined distance according to a type of the first implement connected with the work vehicle [0067] – [0069]. Foessel teaches on a predetermined distance based on a positioning of an implement on the vehicle (192) for the same reasoning as described for claim 4. Foessel can also change its predetermined distance logic based on the type of implement. Foessel explicitly states changing a safety zone (182) based on the type of implement “An implement may comprise a harvesting head, a mower, a plow, a scraper, a planter, a cutter, a harvester, a sprayer, or otherwise.”. This inherently describes that based on the type of implement that is connected to the vehicle (192) and the usage of that implement, the safety zone (182) will extend around and in front.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Okamura with the teachings of Foessel, to ensure all types of implements have a safety zone that is safe for everyone since certain implements are more hazardous compared to others.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20190147315A1 (hereinafter, “Okamura”), and further in view of US20060293856A1 (hereinafter, “Foessel”), and further in view of US20220201920A1 (hereinafter, “McClelland”), and further in view of US20190093320A1 (hereinafter, “Forcash”).
21. Regarding claim 6, Okamura does not explicitly teach the agricultural management system of claim 1, further comprising a first sensor to sense at least a portion of an external shape of the first implement and output sensor data; wherein
when the processor fails to obtain the identification information or when the processor fails to retrieve the implement information corresponding to the identification information, the processor is configured or programmed to set a size of the alert zone based on the sensor data.
McClelland teaches the agricultural management system of claim 1, further comprising a first sensor to sense at least a portion of an external shape of the first implement and output sensor data; wherein [0018], [0022] McClelland teaches an image capturing device (24) (first sensor) that can take images or videos of the implement (14) [0018]. The controller (40) then receives this image data and can output the image data by identifying the implement (14) [0022].
Okamura as modified by McClelland does not explicitly teach when the processor fails to obtain the identification information or when the processor fails to retrieve the implement information corresponding to the identification information, the processor is configured or programmed to set a size of the alert zone based on the sensor data.
However, Forcash teaches when the processor fails to obtain the identification information or when the processor fails to retrieve the implement information corresponding to the identification information, the processor is configured or programmed…based on the sensor data ([0052] – [0054] Fig. 8). Forcash describes a method where if the sensed data of the image of the work tool (implement) doesn’t match a template (implement information), then a new template is manually selected. The non-matching of the sensed data of the image of the work tool to the template constitutes as the processor (506) failing to retrieve the work tool (implement) information. The manual selection afterwards when the template doesn’t match is going off of sensed data of an image which is sensor data from the sensor (110).
Okamura as modified by McClelland and Forcash does not explicitly teach …to set a size of the alert zone…
However, Foessel teaches …to set a size of the alert zone… ([0068] Fig. 8) Foessel teaches on an implement safety zone (182) that is connected to a work vehicle (192).
McClelland, Forcash, and Foessel are analogous art because McClelland teaches on using sensor data to capture images of the implement attached to an agricultural vehicle. Forcash teaches on a system that resorts to a database of templates. If the sensed data of the image of the work tool does not match a template, then Forcash resorts to sensor data. Foessel teaches on implementing a safety zone around an implement connected to a vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of McClelland, Forcash, and Foessel, to modify the teachings of Okamura to include the teachings of McClelland, Forcash, and Foessel, to have a fallback decision in the case where if the implement information doesn’t come back.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20190147315A1 (hereinafter, “Okamura”), and further in view of US20060293856A1 (hereinafter, “Foessel”), and further in view of US20120259537A1 (hereinafter, “Schmidt”), and further in view of US20190130758A1 (hereinafter, “Frederick”).
23. Regarding claim 8, Okamura as modified by Foessel does not explicitly teach the
agricultural management system of claim 1, wherein
the processor is configured or programmed to set a plurality of alert zones
having different sizes; and
the operation performed when a human is present in the alert zone is
varied among the plurality of alert zones.
However, Schmidt teaches the agricultural management system of claim 1,
wherein
the processor is configured or programmed to set a plurality of alert zones
having different sizes; and ([0030], Fig. 7A – 7E) Schmidt teaches that a moving
geofence apparatus (MGA) can set a moving geofence (mgf) on an implement of a
tractor/agricultural vehicle [0030] and not just specifically only vehicles. Figures 7A – 7E also
demonstrate the different sizes of these mgf’s (alert zones). Tractor (704) or an implement may
have mgf (714) and mgf (724).
Okamura as modified by Foessel and Schmidt does not explicitly teach the operation
performed when a human is present in the alert zone is varied among the plurality of alert zones.
However, Frederick teaches the operation performed when a human is present
in the alert zone is varied among the plurality of alert zones [0037] - [0039]. Frederick teaches multiple zones. A warning zone (28 & 58) and a danger zone (26 & 56). An operation is performed when a worker is within these different zones. In a warning zone (28 & 58), a worker can be alerted that they are in the vicinity of a machine. In a danger zone (26 & 56), a worker can use an emergency stop feature to stop the machine.
Schmidt and Frederick are art used because Schmidt teaches on moving geofences that are moving zones that can be attached to an implement and have different sizes while Frederick teaches on performing different actions based on the zone that a worker/human are present in. One of ordinary skill would have had the motivation to combine Schmidt with Frederick because the combination produces a more accurate safety system that can recognize how close people are, distinguish levels of danger, adapts the spatial safety region as the implement on an agricultural machine moves, and give appropriate alerts or control actions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Schmidt and Frederick, to modify the teachings of Okamura as modified by Foessel to include the teachings of Schmidt and Frederick, to have a more accurate safety system that alerts at appropriate distances.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID MESQUITI OVALLE JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-6229. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5pm 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, Erin Piateski can be reached on (571) 270-7429. 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.
/DAVID MESQUITI OVALLE/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669