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 .
This is a final office action on the merits. Claims 1-15 are currently pending and are addressed below.
The examiner notes that the fundamentals of the rejection are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 07/21/2026, regarding the rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to Step 2A, Prong 1, applicant argues that claim 1 is not directed to a mental process when considered as a whole. However, the examiner believes that the claimed step of determining a mixture based on field data and product data encompasses evaluating information (analysis, determination, etc.) and making a simple judgement that can be performed in the human mind. The additional limitations of filling the determined amounts into a field container and applying them does not appear to integrate the abstract idea inro practical application. The examiner would like to note that physical implementation of a result of an abstract determination is not sufficient enough for eligibility. The filling and applying steps are recited at a high level of generality and merely implement the result of the abstract idea in the identified field of agricultural treatment without reciting a technological improvement or meaningful limitation to the process. As such, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3, 6-10 and 12-15 under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(2) and claims 2, 4-5, and 11 under 35 U.S.C 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.
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 1-15 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 is directed towards a method for operating a modular agricultural treatment system (i.e. a process) which falls within at least one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (Prong 1)
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processed.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1
A method for operating a modular agricultural treatment system useable for treating a harmful organism and/or a plant health deficiency on an agricultural field, wherein the modular agricultural treatment system comprises:
a base station with at least two base containers and at least one field device, wherein each of the base containers is filled with a base product
wherein the base products in different base containers are different from one another
wherein each field device comprises a field container, and wherein the method comprises:
providing base product data relating to the base products, the base product data comprising active ingredient information and physical compatibility data of the base products
providing field data relating to field conditions on the agricultural field
determining, based on the base product data and the field data, a mixture of the base products to be used as the field product, the determination of the mixture being made such that the resulting mixture complies with regulatory requirements
filling the base products into the field container of the field device in amounts chosen according to the determined mixture such that the field product in the field container is the determined mixture of the base products
applying the field product to the agricultural field by the field device
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a mental process because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of limitations in the human mind. The “determining” step in the context of the claims, encompasses a person looking at the sensor data collected (obtained, received, acquired, provided, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) regarding the type of mixture agent to be applied to an agricultural area based on the obtained sensor data in an area either mentally, or using pen and paper. For example, based on obtained characteristics of certain crops in a designated area, an agricultural treatment plan (mixture of base products) can be determined based on the qualities of the field observed from the sensor data. Thus, claim 1 recites at least one mental process.
STEP 2A (Prong 2)
Claim 1
A method for operating a modular agricultural treatment system useable for treating a harmful organism and/or a plant health deficiency on an agricultural field, wherein the modular agricultural treatment system comprises:
a base station with at least two base containers and at least one field device, wherein each of the base containers is filled with a base product, wherein the base products in different base containers are different from one another
wherein each field device comprises a field container, and wherein the method comprises:
providing base product data relating to the base products, the base product data comprising active ingredient information and physical compatibility data of the base products
providing field data relating to field conditions on the agricultural field
determining, based on the base product data and the field data, a mixture of the base products to be used as the field product, the determination of the mixture being made such that the resulting mixture complies with regulatory requirements
filling the base products into the field container of the field device in amounts chosen according to the determined mixture such that the field product in the field container is the determined mixture of the base products
applying the field product to the agricultural field by the field device
The examiner submits that the identified additional limitations do not integrate the
previously discussed abstract ideas into practical applications. Regarding the additional
limitations of, “providing,” “filling,” and “applying,” they are forms of insignificant extra- solution activity. The “providing” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving, obtaining, providing etc., sensor data regarding an environment associated with a mobile structure) and amounts to mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The following “filling” and “applying” steps are recited at a high level of generality (as a general means of information processing/rendering and execution of outputting a result) that merely implement the determined mixture without specifying how the mixture is physically formed or controlled and are post solution actions which are also forms of insignificant extra-solution activities. As such, the additional elements of claim 1 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
STEP 2B
Claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered individually and as an ordered
combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above. General application of an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed towards 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.
Dependent claims 2-15 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. The limitations of the dependent claims are directed towards additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
As such, claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 as being drawn to an abstract
idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6-10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freudigmann Hans-Arndt et al. (US20200170236A1), hereinafter referred to as Arndt, in view of Applegate Doug et al. (US20110035055A1), hereinafter referred to as Doug.
Regarding claim 1, Hans-Arndt discloses: a method for operating a modular agricultural treatment system useable for treating a harmful organism and/or a plant health deficiency on an agricultural field (see at least Hans-Arndt, ¶¶ [0008]-[0015], [0023]. [0032]-[0036] which discloses a method for applying a spraying agent to an agricultural field to treat and protect plant health, this means a modular agricultural treatment system useable for treating a harmful organism and/or a plant health deficiency on an agricultural field) wherein the modular agricultural treatment system comprises:
a base station with at least two base containers and at least one field device (see at least Hans-Arndt, ¶¶ [0043]-[0047] which discloses a station with at least two containers containing spray mixture and a field sprayer device used on the agricultural field)
wherein each of the base containers is filled with a base product, wherein each field device comprises a field container (see at least Hans-Arndt, ¶¶ [0020]-[0021] which discloses the base containers filled with spray agent, the extensive application comprising a container amount per area, this means wherein each of the base containers is filled with a base product, wherein each field device comprises a field container) and wherein the method comprises:
providing base product data relating to the base products (see at least Hans-Arndt, ¶¶ [0023]-[0026], [0025], [0036], which discloses providing spay agent data relative to the residual amounts that have to be applied to the field, this means providing base product data relating to the base products)
providing field data relating to field conditions on the agricultural field (see at least Hans-Arndt, ¶¶ [0017]-[0018], [0024]-[0025], [0036], which discloses providing field data related to the conditions of the agricultural field, such as size, location, geometry, etc.)
determining, based on the base product data and the field data, a mixture of the base products to be used as the field product (see at least Hans-Arndt, ¶¶ [0017]-[0018], [0020]-[0021] which discloses the determination of mixed spray agent and extensive application depending on the conditions of the agricultural field taken from field data to provide treatment, this means determining, based on the base product data and the field data, a mixture of the base products to be used as the field product)
filling the base products into the field container of the field device such that the field product in the field container is the determined mixture of the base products (see at least Hans-Arndt, ¶¶ [0017]-[0018], [0020]-[0021], which discloses the process of providing mixed spray agents into the container of the field device based on the determined step of extensive application, which means filling the base products into the field container of the field device such that the field product in the field container is the determined mixture of the base products)
applying the field product to the agricultural field by the field device (see at least Hans-Arndt, ¶¶ [0017-[0018], [0020]-[0021], [0043]-[0047] which discloses applying the mixed spray agent in an determined extensive application to the designated agricultural field area using the spray device)
Hans-Arndt is silent on, however, in the same field of endeavor, Doug teaches: wherein the base products in different base containers are different from one another (see at least Doug, ¶¶ [0007], which discloses each chemical or ingredient has its own container, which means wherein the base products in different base containers are different from one another)
the base product data comprising active ingredient information and physical compatibility data of the base products (see at least Doug, ¶¶ [0045]-[0047], which discloses the base product data that has information such as lot number, date of expiration, strength, and specific content information, this means the base product data comprising active ingredient information and physical compatibility data of the base products)
the determination of the mixture being made such that the resulting mixture complies with regulatory requirements (see at least Doug, ¶¶ [0044]-[0045], [0048]-[0050], which discloses information regarding the determination of the mixture being made such that the resulting mixture complies with regulatory requirements)
filling the base products into the field container of the field device in amounts chosen according to the determined mixture such that the field product in the field container is the determined mixture of the base products (see at least Doug, ¶¶ [0029]-[0030], [0078]-[0080], which discloses determining the weight or volume of each input required for the mixture and ensuring the proper amount is chosen when dispensing the base products into the field container/applicator, this means filling the base products into the field container of the field device in amounts chosen according to the determined mixture such that the field product in the field container is the determined mixture of the base products)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hans-Arndt to include: the base product data comprising active ingredient information and physical compatibility data of the base products, the determination of the mixture being made such that the resulting mixture complies with regulatory requirements, and filling the base products into the field container of the field device in amounts chosen according to the determined mixture such that the field product in the field container is the determined mixture of the base products as taught by Doug. The examiner would like to note that Hans-Arndt discloses separately carrying different spray based agent components and mixing them as needed for the invention’s application. Incorporating Doug’s teachings of determining appropriate amounts and ratios of separately stored inputs based on field conditions and product information would provide an improvement to the base invention of Hans-Arndt that reduces operator calculation and improves accuracy to avoid unsuitable product application of base products.
Regarding claim 3, Hans-Arndt discloses: the method according to claim 1, wherein the base products are at least one out of a group or a mixture of at least two out of the group, the group consisting of chemical products, biological products, fertilizers, nutrients, bio-stimulants, pheromones, water, tank-mix adjuvants, detergents, compatibilizers, anti-foaming agents, water conditioners and pH- modifiers (see at least Hans-Arndt, ¶¶ [0002]-[0005], [0043]-[0047])
Regarding claim 6, Hans-Arndt discloses: the method according to claim 1,wherein the field data comprises at least one out of general field conditions, crop type, crop growth stage, crop disease, disease prediction, pest pressure, pest prediction, weed pressure, weed prediction, crop infection risk, abiotic stress, temperature, humidity, precipitation, weather conditions, weather forecast, soil characteristics, time of application, previously applied products and/or product requirements (see at least Hans-Arndt, ¶¶ [0017]-[0018], which discloses factors based on detected difference vegetation indices such as, type, size, species, number of leaves, disease and infestation predictions, biological features, etc.; [0020]-[0021] which discloses the determination of mixed spray agent and extensive application depending on the conditions of the agricultural field taken from field data to provide treatment, this means determining, based on the base product data and the field data, a mixture of the base products to be used as the field product; [0048]-[0050], discloses product requirements in the form of a permissible threshold of amount of spray agent applied per area;)
Regarding claim 7, Hans-Arndt discloses: the method according to claim 1 wherein at least some of the field data is taken in short intervals, the short intervals being one week or less (see at least Hans-Arndt, ¶¶ [0018])
Regarding claim 8, Hans-Arndt discloses: the method according to claim 1,wherein determining the mixture of the base products is performed by a smart algorithm and/or an artificial intelligence system (see at least Hans-Arndt, ¶¶ [0018] which discloses determining the mixture of base products and extensive application performed by a learned identification unit)
Regarding claim 9, Hans-Arndt discloses: the method according to claim 1,wherein the base products are mixed in the base station and the mixture of the base products is filled into the field container and/or the base products are separately filled into the field container and the amounts of each of the base products filled into the field container are chosen according to the determined mixture (see at least Hans-Arndt, ¶¶ [0017]-[0018], [0020]-[0021], which discloses the process of providing mixed spray agents into the container of the field device based on the determined step of extensive application, which means filling the base products into the field container of the field device such that the field product in the field container is the determined mixture of the base products)
Regarding claim 10, Hans-Arndt discloses: the method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises obtaining a desired effect as user input and the determination of the mixture of the base products to be used as the field product is further based on the desired effect (see at least Hans-Arndt, ¶¶ [0034-0036] which discloses predefined residual section may be definable with the aid of an inputtable area or size of an area; the option is created for an operator of the agricultural field sprayer, for example a farmer who does not have any GPS data available for ascertaining his field size or the previously untreated area or the area of the headland, for intervening directly in the device or the method, this means wherein the method further comprises obtaining a desired effect as user input; and the determination of the mixture of the base products to be used as the field product is further based on the desired effect)
Regarding claim 12, Hans-Arndt discloses: the method according to claim 1,wherein an application map is generated; and the field product is applied at a rate according to the application map (see at least Hans-Arndt, ¶¶ [0018]-[0019], [0024], [0026] which discloses the generation of a digital map indicative of extensive application of a mixed agent to treat a portion of an agricultural field at a rate)
Regarding claim 13, Hans-Arndt discloses: the method according to claim 1,wherein the field device obtains current field data just prior to and/or during the application of the field produce and the field product is applied at a rate depending on the obtained current field data (see at least Hans-Arndt, ¶¶ [0017]-[0018], [0020]-[0021] which discloses the determination of mixed spray agent and extensive application depending on the conditions of the agricultural field taken from field data to provide treatment, this means determining, based on the base product data and the field data, a mixture of the base products to be used as the field product done prior to the application of field produce applied at a rate)
Regarding claim 14, Hans-Arndt discloses: the method according to claim 1,wherein when a field device is scheduled to treat a particular part of the agricultural field, a specific mixture is determined for said particular part of the agricultural field; and the base products are filled into the field container of the respective field device according to the specific mixture determined for the particular part of the agricultural field (see at least Hans-Arndt, ¶¶ [0017]-[0018], [0020]-[0021], which discloses the process of providing mixed spray agents into the container of the field device based on the determined step of extensive application for a designated part of the agricultural field, which means filling the base products into the field container of the field device such that the field product in the field container is the determined mixture of the base products)
Regarding claim 15, Hans-Arndt discloses: a modular agricultural treatment system (see at least Hans-Arndt, ¶¶ [0008]-[0015], [0023]. [0032]-[0036] which discloses a method for applying a spraying agent to an agricultural field to treat and protect plant health, this means a modular agricultural treatment system useable for treating a harmful organism and/or a plant health deficiency on an agricultural field), comprising:
a base station with at least two base containers, wherein each of the base containers is adapted to be filled with a base product (see at least Hans-Arndt, ¶¶ [0043]-[0047] which discloses a station with at least two containers containing spray mixture and a field sprayer device used on the agricultural field)
at least one field device, wherein each field device comprises a field container that is adapted to be filled with a field product, and the field device is adapted to apply the field product to the agricultural field (see at least Hans-Arndt, ¶¶ [0020]-[0021] which discloses the base containers filled with spray agent, the extensive application comprising a container amount per area, this means wherein each of the base containers is filled with a base product, wherein each field device comprises a field container)
a processor, adapted to determine, based on base product data and field data, a mixture of the base products to be used as the field product (see at least Hans-Arndt, ¶¶ [0017]-[0018], [0020]-[0021] which discloses the determination of mixed spray agent and extensive application depending on the conditions of the agricultural field taken from field data to provide treatment, this means determining, based on the base product data and the field data, a mixture of the base products to be used as the field product)
wherein the modular agricultural treatment system is adapted to perform the method according to claim 1 (see at least Hans-Arndt, ¶¶ [0017-[0018], [0020]-[0021], [0043]-[0047] which discloses applying the mixed spray agent in an determined extensive application to the designated agricultural field area using the spray device)
Hans-Arndt is silent on, however, in the same field of endeavor, Doug teaches: wherein the base products in different base containers are different from one another (see at least Doug, ¶¶ [0007], which discloses each chemical or ingredient has its own container, which means wherein the base products in different base containers are different from one another)
the base product data comprising active ingredient information and physical compatibility data of the base products (see at least Doug, ¶¶ [0045]-[0047], which discloses the base product data that has information such as lot number, date of expiration, strength, and specific content information, this means the base product data comprising active ingredient information and physical compatibility data of the base products)
and the determination of the mixture being made such that the resulting mixture complies with regulatory requirements (see at least Doug, ¶¶ [0044]-[0045], [0048]-[0050], which discloses information regarding the determination of the mixture being made such that the resulting mixture complies with regulatory requirements)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hans-Arndt to include: the base product data comprising active ingredient information and physical compatibility data of the base products, the determination of the mixture being made such that the resulting mixture complies with regulatory requirements as taught by Doug. The examiner would like to note that Hans-Arndt discloses separately carrying different spray-based agent components and mixing them as needed for the invention’s application. Incorporating Doug’s teachings of determining appropriate amounts and ratios of separately stored inputs based on field conditions and product information would provide an improvement to the base invention of Hans-Arndt that reduces operator calculation and improves accuracy to avoid unsuitable product application of base products.
Claims 2, 4-5, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freudigmann Hans-Arndt et al. (US20200170236A1), hereinafter referred to as Arndt, in view of Applegate Doug et al. (US20110035055A1), hereinafter referred to as Doug, in further view of Faers Malcom et al. (WO20210180475A1), hereinafter referred to as Malcom.
Regarding claim 2, modified Hans-Arndt is silent on, however, in the same field of endeavor, Malcom teaches: the method according to claim 1, wherein the base station is kept stationary while the field device applies the field product to the agricultural field (see at least Malcom, pg.5, lines 16-19; pg.7, lines 6-12; pg.14, lines 6-12; which discloses the stationary base station which is kept stationary to provide services such as a refill of a spray tank while the field device may separately apply the spray agent to the agricultural field)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hans-Arndt to include wherein the base station is kept stationary while the field device applies the field product to the agricultural field as taught by Malcom. Incorporating the teachings of Malcom would allow for an improvement to the base device of Han-Arndt to further enhance agricultural management that incorporates maintenance and servicing into factors such as overall productivity in the field and duration of work.
Regarding claim 4, modified Hans-Arndt is silent on, however, in the same field of endeavor, Malcom teaches: the method according to claim 1, wherein the base station further performs supplying power to the field device and/or cleaning the field device (see at least Malcom, pg.19, lines, 14-17 which discloses a service unit present at the base station which is configured to provide power (recharge) to the field device)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hans-Arndt to include wherein the base station further performs supplying power to the field device and/or cleaning the field device as taught by Malcom. Incorporating the teachings of Malcom would allow for an improvement to the base device of Han-Arndt to further enhance agricultural management that incorporates maintenance and servicing into factors such as overall productivity in the field and duration of work by providing a method of recharging, or supply of power to the field device.
Regarding claim 5, modified Hans-Arndt is silent on, however, in the same field of endeavor, Malcom teaches: the method according to claim 1,wherein the field device is an agricultural robot and/or an unmanned aerial spraying system (see at least Malcom, pg.1, lines 26-30; pg.4, lines 24-27; pg.7, lines 6-12, which discloses wherein the field device is an agricultural UAV with a spray unit capable of applying product to designated portions of an agricultural field)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hans-Arndt to include the method according to claim 1,wherein the field device is an agricultural robot and/or an unmanned aerial spraying system as taught by Malcom. The examiner would like to note that the disclosure of Hans-Arndt (see Fig.1) appears to provide a machine capable of applying the mixed agent via a spraying system to the agricultural field, however, it is not specified whether the system is unmanned, though there is no mention of direct input to control the device, however, for the sake of specificity and explicit disclosure, Malcom has been provided. Incorporating the teaching of Malcom would allow for an improvement to the base device of Hans-Arndt that automates the spraying procedure to further improve on the productivity and output of the device.
Regarding claim 11, modified Hans-Arndt is silent on, however in the same field of endeavor, Malcom teaches: the method according to claim 1,wherein the method further comprises determining a time of application; and the field product is applied to the agricultural field at the determined time of application (see at least Malcom, pg.11, lines 1-14; pg. 26, lines 5-9, which discloses a time stamp of flight (time of application by UAV) ; and the field product is applied to the agricultural field at the determined time of application that ensures a short duration)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hans-Arndt to include determining a time of application; and the field product is applied to the agricultural field at the determined time of application as taught by Malcom. Incorporating the teachings of Malcom would allow for an improvement to the base device of Han-Arndt to further enhance agricultural management that incorporates maintenance and servicing into factors such as overall productivity in the field and duration of work.
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 KIRSTEN JADE M SANTOS whose telephone number is (571)272-7442. The examiner can normally be reached Monday: 8:00 am - 4:00 pm, 6:00-8:00 pm (+ with flex).
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached at (571) 272-4896. 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.
/KIRSTEN JADE M SANTOS/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
