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 the Claims
Claims 1-12 are pending. Claims 1, 3-6, and 9-10 are amended. Claims 11-12 are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/30/2025, with respect to the 101 rejection has been considered but is not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on page 8, that Claim 1 is eligible under prong two of step 2A because even if the claim recites a judicial exception, the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim limitations as drafted, recite a concept, that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations are analogous to managing personal behavior or interactions between people (interactions between people), or a commercial or legal interaction (sales activity) such as determining a waste disposal vendor to dispose of waste (specification, par. 0004-0005). Additionally, the limitations a mathematical optimization process are considered mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships/calculations) and or mental processes (evaluation/judgement). The additional elements (computer elements, estimation model with training data, and mathematical optimization, etc) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Applicant argues, on page 9-10, that that even if it is assumed the claim is directed to an abstract idea, which is not conceded, independent claim 1 recites significantly more than any allegedly abstract idea. Applicant argues that the claim provides an inventive concept and does not simply append well-understood, routine or conventional activities.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies in 2B. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claims are ineligible. Furthermore, Examiner notes that At Step 2A Prong Two or Step 2B, there is no requirement for evidence to support a finding that the exception is not integrated into a practical application or that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the exception unless the examiner asserts that additional limitations are well-understood, routine, conventional activities in Step 2B. Examiner has analyzed the additional elements separately and in combination and they are considered generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/30/2025, with respect to the art rejection is considered moot in light of the updated rejection.
Applicant argues, on page 11, that Collins does not disclose or suggest a disposal facility being automatically selected.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the claim limitations do not require the selection of to be automatic. The claims recite adopting and selecting by a mathematical optimization process and based on various constraints representing the request. There is nothing in the claim language that requires the selection to be automatic.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claim 1-8 and 11-12 is directed to a system with multiple components, and therefore is a machine.
Claim 9 is directed to a series of steps, and therefore is a process.
Claim 10 is directed to non-transitory computer readable media and therefore is considered an article of manufacture.
Independent Claims
Step 2A Prong One
The limitation of Claim 1 recites:
receive input of waste information representing details of waste;
estimate an amount of waste …based on a past construction case and a type of the waste and an amount of the waste generated in the construction case; and
adopt and select a vendor to dispose of the waste included by the waste information (by a mathematical optimization process) based on a constraint relating to disposal of the waste based on vendor information including information on details of business of a vendor that performs business related to the disposal of the waste and an objective function relating to a preset index based on request information representing a request associated with the disposal of the waste by one that desires the disposal of the waste.
The limitation of Claim 9 recites:
An information processing method by …, the information processing method comprising:
receiving input of waste information representing details of waste; and
estimating an amount of waste … based on a past construction case and a type of the waste and an amount of the waste generated in the construction case; and
adopting and selecting a vendor to ask to dispose of the waste included by the waste information (by a mathematical optimization process) based on a constraint relating to disposal of the waste based on vendor information including information on details of business of a vendor that performs business related to the disposal of the waste and an objective function relating to a preset index based on request information representing a request associated with the disposal of the waste by one that desires the disposal of the waste.
The limitation of Claim 10 recites:
receive input of waste information representing details of waste;
estimate an amount of waste … based on a past construction case and a type of the waste and an amount of the waste generated in the construction case; and
adopt and select a vendor to ask to dispose of the waste included by the waste information (by a mathematical optimization process) based on a constraint relating to disposal of the waste based on vendor information including information on details of business of a vendor that performs business related to the disposal of the waste and an objective function relating to a preset index based on request information representing a request associated with the disposal of the waste by one that desires the disposal of the waste.
The claim limitations as drafted, recite a concept, that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations are analogous to managing personal behavior or interactions between people (interactions between people), or a commercial or legal interaction (sales activity) such as determining a waste disposal vendor to dispose of waste. Additionally, the limitations a mathematical optimization process are considered mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships/calculations) and or mental processes (evaluation/judgement). The generic computer implementations (see below) do not change the character of the limitations. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 1:
An information processing apparatus comprising:
at least one memory storing processing instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the processing instructions,
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the processing instructions to:
an estimation model trained on training data
mathematical optimization process
Claim 9:
An information processing apparatus
mathematical optimization process
Claim 10:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program, the program comprising instructions for causing a computer to execute processes to:
mathematical optimization process
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h))
Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-8 and 11-12 further narrow the same abstract ideas recited in Claims 1. Therefore, claims 2-8 and 11-12 are directed to an abstract idea for the reasons given above.
No additional elements
There are no further additional elements recited in dependent claims (apart from those already recited and analyzed above in the independent claims) that change the character of the limitations. Therefore, the claims are directed to ineligible subject matter.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Collins (US2018/0268379A1) and in further view of Elliott (US12518235B1).
Claim 1: An information processing apparatus comprising:
at least one memory storing processing instructions; and (Collins, Par. 0164-0166)
at least one processor configured to execute the processing instructions, (Collins, Par. 0164-0166)
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the processing instructions to:
receive input of waste information representing details of waste; and (Collins, par. 0136 and Fig. 5A-5B)
Collins, Par. 0136, teaches the waste exchange platform may comprise a fifth selectable input 520 “WASTE PARAMETERS” corresponding to one or more types of waste (e.g., and/or a composition of materials) corresponding to the waste.
adopt and select a vendor to dispose of the waste included by the waste information (Collins, Par. 0136-0137; Par. 0152 Fig. 5D)
Collins, Par. 0136, teaches The waste exchange platform interface may comprise a seventh selectable input 524 “SEARCH FILTERS” corresponding to filters to be applied when performing a search for waste facilities. In some examples, the filters may be inputted using the seventh selectable input 524. The waste exchange platform interface may comprise an eighth selectable input 526 “SEARCH” corresponding to a request for a list of selectable waste options. For example, a selection of the eighth selectable input 526 may be received (e.g., via the waste exchange platform interface). Responsive to receiving the selection of the eight selectable input 526, a waste information aggregation database may be analyzed to identify waste items (e.g., waste facilities) based upon the search criteria. The list of selectable waste options may be generated based upon the waste items.
Collins, Par. 0137, teaches The list of selectable waste options may comprise a first selectable waste option 528 corresponding to a first waste facility “JASON'S LANDFILL”, a second selectable waste option 530 corresponding to a second waste facility “JILL'S DISPOSAL” and/or a third selectable waste option 532 corresponding to a third waste facility “TRASH CITY”. In some examples, each selectable waste option of the list of selectable waste options may comprise a name of a company corresponding to a waste facility, a location (e.g., an address) of a waste facility, a distance of a waste facility from the waste and/or a rating of a waste facility. For example, a selection of the first selectable waste option 528 may be received (e.g., via the waste exchange platform interface).
Collins, par. 0152 in Fig. 5D, teaches price and enabling the user to efficiently, quickly and accurately identify waste facilities, waste vendors and/or sources of raw materials, and facilitate the movement of waste from physical location to physical location in an efficient and cost-effective manner (e.g., as a result of a waste exchange platform interface enabling the user to browse through, view and/or search for waste facilities, waste vendors and/or sources of raw materials, as a result of enabling the user to apply filters when searching for waste facilities, waste vendors and/or sources of raw materials, as a result of each selectable waste option of a list of selectable waste options presented to the user comprising one or more characteristics of a corresponding waste item, etc.). (i.e. constraint and preset index)
While Collins teaches the limitations as described above, it does not explicitly teach but Elliott teaches:
estimate an amount of waste using an estimation model trained on training data that is based on a past construction case and a type of the waste and an amount of the waste generated in the construction case; (Elliott, Col. 10 Lines 1-47; Col. 9 lines 44-55)
Elliott, Col. 10 Lines 1-47, teaches From the STG (staging area) zone, clean data can be ingested into an ODS (operating data store) zone which contains the latest version of a given transaction along with a historical view of data. (4.) Ingested data is integrated and processed per business transformation and mapping rules. Rules are ways in which data is joined together or waste metrics are defined. Some of these rules include ensuring all defined service locations are in both the waste service event data and the customer service location definition. Rules ensure that container volume data always has an associated standard pre-defined unit of measure such as yardage or gallons and unit of measure conversion rules are applied to allow the user to view weight-based data in metric vs. short tons for example. Rules ensure that mappings exist to convert to a predefined set of libraries for material type and treatment method. (5.) As shown in FIG. 2, large amounts (e.g., millions) of waste data transaction records can be aggregated into a single waste data transaction logical model using one or more common data organization and coding standards, such as (without limitation) the following: (i) service location; (ii) pickup service transaction type; (iii) waste transportation; and (iv) waste destination. (6.) In the case of multiple client waste/recycling collection services, client-specific waste volumes and associated environmental footprint metrics can be calculated using multiple data types/sources, both from internal systems of record and external. (7.) In certain illustrative embodiments, such as shown in FIG. 28, waste volumes can be calculated based on actual data transaction records and recordings from various types of recording devices with software programming interfaces recording actual weights and material types disposed as well as based on image stream analysis and the application of artificial intelligence (“AI”) algorithms to confirm material type and volumes and to estimate associated material weights. In certain illustrative embodiments, material weight is critical in determining the actual amount of waste disposed, diverted or the emissions associated with those scenarios. In some cases, actual truck and material weights are available as a recording from a scaling device and that reading can be directly ingested as raw data. In other cases, a physical weight recording is not available. In those cases, image data captured though multiple cameras positioned on the truck when waste is being loaded can be used to derive composition and volume estimations. (i.e. estimation model trained on training data, historical data)
Elliott, Col. 9 lines 44-55, method can provide a user/organization with visualizations of critical current and historical waste data, in a standardized format, which can: (i) enable the user to understand the organization's waste volume associated with disposal and different treatment methods along with its estimated emissions footprint; (ii) enable the user to drill down into the organization's locations to determine a specific waste and emissions footprint associated with waste using a unique hierarchical system to organize data; (iii) generate reports and integrate data into third party reporting platforms; and (iv) estimate and aggregate the organization's emissions associated with waste.
Furthermore, Elliott in Col. 2 Lines 55-65, teaches the optimization for NAICS targets (i.e. mathematical optimization process)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the waste disposal system of Collins to include Waste estimation utilizing AI and optimization based on sustainability targets provided by the NAICS, as taught by Elliott, in order to enable the customer to effectively audit every store every month or quarter by providing the required waste performance reports. In addition, the data contributes to generating carbon footprint studies that contribute to better decisions in how to reduce GHG emissions associated with waste, for example by providing specific locations that can divert specific material types to recycling along with the respective volume/quantity/cost information. (Elliott Col. 30, lines 38-46.)
Claim 2: Collins and Elliott teach The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein:
the vendor information includes information on waste that the vendor can handle; and (Collins, Par. 0136: The waste exchange platform interface may comprise a seventh selectable input 524 “SEARCH FILTERS” corresponding to filters to be applied when performing a search for waste facilities. In some examples, the filters may be inputted using the seventh selectable input 524. The waste exchange platform interface may comprise an eighth selectable input 526 “SEARCH” corresponding to a request for a list of selectable waste options. For example, a selection of the eighth selectable input 526 may be received (e.g., via the waste exchange platform interface). Responsive to receiving the selection of the eight selectable input 526, a waste information aggregation database may be analyzed to identify waste items (e.g., waste facilities) based upon the search criteria. The list of selectable waste options may be generated based upon the waste items.)
the at least one processor is configured to execute the processing instructions to adopt the vendor that can handle disposal of the waste included by the waste information, based on the vendor information. (Collins, Par. 0137: The list of selectable waste options may comprise a first selectable waste option 528 corresponding to a first waste facility “JASON'S LANDFILL”, a second selectable waste option 530 corresponding to a second waste facility “JILL'S DISPOSAL” and/or a third selectable waste option 532 corresponding to a third waste facility “TRASH CITY”. In some examples, each selectable waste option of the list of selectable waste options may comprise a name of a company corresponding to a waste facility, a location (e.g., an address) of a waste facility, a distance of a waste facility from the waste and/or a rating of a waste facility. For example, a selection of the first selectable waste option 528 may be received (e.g., via the waste exchange platform interface)
Claim 3: Collins and Elliott teach The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein:
the vendor information includes information on a characteristic of the vendor in disposal of waste; and (Collins, Par. 0136: The waste exchange platform interface may comprise a seventh selectable input 524 “SEARCH FILTERS” corresponding to filters to be applied when performing a search for waste facilities. In some examples, the filters may be inputted using the seventh selectable input 524. The waste exchange platform interface may comprise an eighth selectable input 526 “SEARCH” corresponding to a request for a list of selectable waste options. For example, a selection of the eighth selectable input 526 may be received (e.g., via the waste exchange platform interface). Responsive to receiving the selection of the eight selectable input 526, a waste information aggregation database may be analyzed to identify waste items (e.g., waste facilities) based upon the search criteria. The list of selectable waste options may be generated based upon the waste items.)
the at least one processor is configured to execute the processing instructions to adopt the vendor based on the characteristic included by the vendor information. (Collins, Par. 0137: The list of selectable waste options may comprise a first selectable waste option 528 corresponding to a first waste facility “JASON'S LANDFILL”, a second selectable waste option 530 corresponding to a second waste facility “JILL'S DISPOSAL” and/or a third selectable waste option 532 corresponding to a third waste facility “TRASH CITY”. In some examples, each selectable waste option of the list of selectable waste options may comprise a name of a company corresponding to a waste facility, a location (e.g., an address) of a waste facility, a distance of a waste facility from the waste and/or a rating of a waste facility. For example, a selection of the first selectable waste option 528 may be received (e.g., via the waste exchange platform interface)
Claim 4: Collins and Elliott teach The information processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the processing instructions to:
receive request information representing the request associated with disposal by the one that desires the disposal of the waste; and (Collins, Par. 0134 and Fig. 5A-5G: user request; 0136: waste parameters)
adopt the vendor based on the request information and the characteristic included by the vendor information. (Collins, Par. 0137: The list of selectable waste options may comprise a first selectable waste option 528 corresponding to a first waste facility “JASON'S LANDFILL”, a second selectable waste option 530 corresponding to a second waste facility “JILL'S DISPOSAL” and/or a third selectable waste option 532 corresponding to a third waste facility “TRASH CITY”. In some examples, each selectable waste option of the list of selectable waste options may comprise a name of a company corresponding to a waste facility, a location (e.g., an address) of a waste facility, a distance of a waste facility from the waste and/or a rating of a waste facility. For example, a selection of the first selectable waste option 528 may be received (e.g., via the waste exchange platform interface)
Claim 5: Collins and Elliott teach The information processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein:
the vendor information includes a value of the preset index associated with execution of the business by the vendor, as the characteristic of the vendor; and (Collins, Par. 0138 and Fig. 5D: price)
the at least one processor is configured to execute the processing instructions to:
receive the request information including information that designates the index; and (Collins, Par. 0138 and Fig. 5D: price)
adopt the vendor based on the designated index included by the request information and the value of the index included by the vendor information. (Collins, Par. 0138 and Fig. 5D: selection)
Claim 6: Collins and Elliott teachThe information processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein:
the vendor information includes information on a location where the vendor executes the business, as the characteristic of the vendor; and (Collins, Par. 0137-0138 Fig. 5C and 5D: location)
the at least one processor is configured to execute the processing instructions to:
receive discharge location information representing a waste discharge location; and (Collins, Par. 0137-0138 Fig. 5C and 5D location)
adopt the vendor based on the discharge location information and the information on the location where the vendor executes the business included by the vendor information. (Collins, Par. 0137-0138 Fig. 5C and 5D: selection)
Claim 7: Collins and Elliott teach The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein:
the vendor information includes information representing that the details of the business of the vendor is transportation business of transporting waste or disposal business of disposing of waste; and (Collins, Par. 0147-0148: shipping and transport)
the at least one processor is configured to execute the processing instructions to adopt a combination of the vendor that performs the transportation business and the vendor that performs the disposal business, based on the vendor information. (Collins, Par. 0147-0148: shipping and transport)
Claim 8 Collins and Elliott teach The information processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein:
the vendor information includes information on a location where the vendor performs the business; and (Collins, Par. 0137-0138 Fig. 5C and 5D: location)
the at least one processor is configured to execute the processing instructions to receive discharge location information representing a waste discharge location; and (Collins, Par. 0137-0138 Fig. 5C and 5D: location)
adopt a combination of the vendor that performs the transportation business and the vendor that performs the disposal business based on the discharge location information and the vendor information. (Collins, Par. 0137-0138 Fig. 5C and 5D: selection)
Claim 9:
Claim 9 is directed to a method. Claim 9 recites limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 1 which is directed towards a system. Claim 9 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1, respectively.
Claim 10:
Claim 10 is directed to a non-transitory media. Claim 10 recites limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 1 which is directed towards a system. Claim 10 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1, respectively. Furthermore, claim 10 recites non transitory media which is taught by Collins in Par. 0164-0166.
Claim 11: Collins and Elliott teaches The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the constraint relates to a type of waste that a vendor can handle based on the vendor information. (Collins, Par. 0136 FIG. 5B illustrates the graphical user interface of the first device 500 being controlled to display the waste exchange platform interface. In some examples, the waste exchange platform interface may comprise a fourth selectable input 518 “WASTE LOCATION” corresponding to a geographic location (e.g., and/or a geographic area) of waste that the first user may want to undergo storage, processing, treatment, disposal, destruction, recycling and/or reuse. Alternatively and/or additionally, the waste exchange platform may comprise a fifth selectable input 520 “WASTE PARAMETERS” corresponding to one or more types of waste (e.g., and/or a composition of materials) corresponding to the waste.)
Claim 12: Collins and Elliott teaches The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the objective function relates to any one of a cost associated with the disposal of the waste, a recycling rate in the disposal of the waste, an amount of CO2 emissions in the disposal of the waste, and a date and time of disposal of the waste, based on the request information. (Elliott in Col. 2 Lines 55-65: cost)
See above rationale to combine.
Conclusion
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 ISMAIL A MANEJWALA whose telephone number is (571)272-8904. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at 571-270-3923. 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.
/ISMAIL A MANEJWALA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights