DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/04/2026 and 07/21/2026 (2) are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
This Office action is in reply to filing by applicant on 07/21/2026.
Claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 11, 15, and 18 were amended by Applicant.
Claims 2, 3, 5 – 7, 10, 12 – 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 remain as original.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
As previously expressly noticed in the last Non-Final Rejection (04/22/2026), amended claims 1 - 20 herein are subjected to an obviousness type double patenting rejection based upon the issued parent patent to this application, (US12,346,987B2) to the same inventor, Simpson. Detailed discussion following.
The prior 35 USC 101 claim rejections set forth in the Non-Final rejection of 04/22/2026 as to claims 1 – 20 are maintained in view of Applicant's arguments and amendments. Detailed discussion following.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL
Response to Arguments
With regard to the limitations of claims 1 – 20, Applicant argues that the claims as amended are patent eligible under 35 USC 101 because they meet the analysis set forth by the Supreme Court. Remarks 10 - 23. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The subject claims noted were analyzed pursuant to MPEP 2106, et seq., and are still considered ineligible. Step 1 is met because the claims are directed towards one of the four statutory categories; Part 2A-Prong1 of the test is trying to evaluate if the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the MPEP 2106.04(a)); Part 2A-Prong 2 is to evaluate whether the subject claims recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application, and, lastly, Part 2B checks whether the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. A detailed and formal analysis pursuant to 35 USC 101 as the same applies to the amended claim set will follow below.
As respects 35 USC 101, the claims as a whole amount to a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitations when taken individually and in combination are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field nor improvements to the function of the computer itself. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea. A detailed and formal analysis pursuant to 35 USC 101 as the same applies to the specifics of the claims follows below.
Applicant’s first specific argument pursuant to 35 USC 101 is that there simply is no abstract idea set forth in the amended claims. See 07/21/2026 arguments in Docket, pp. 10 – 15. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims as amended recite the abstract idea of:
tracking origin location data and the destination location data [and] determining a plurality of virtual hubs based on transportation data.
Applicant’s second argument pursuant to 35 USC 101 is – above noted abstract idea aside – that the amended claims of 7/21/2026 set forth a practical application. See 07/21/2026 arguments in Docket, pp. 15 – 19. Examiner respectfully disagrees. There is nothing practical about a freight hauling outfit employing generically claimed GPS to assist it in locating its shipments. The claims are simply applying generic GPS technology to the abstract idea (shipping tasks).
Applicant’s final argument pursuant to 35 USC 101 is that the above said amended claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See 07/21/2026 arguments in Docket, pp. 19 – 21. This argument is simply a recouched Argument “second” as above. To that end, examiner respectfully once again disagrees, and also refers Applicant to argument “second” above.
Double Patenting
Claims 1 – 20 in this application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over independent method claim 1, independent system claim 5, and independent non-transitory computer readable medium claim 9 of the issued parent patent to Simpson (US12346987B2, the “987” patent (same Applicant herein).
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Although the instant claims 1 - 20 are not identical to the above noted claims of the 987 patent, they are not patentably distinct, as more specifically noted below.
Obviousness analysis
Regarding independent method claim 1, independent system claim 15, and independent non-transitory computer readable medium claim 18 of the instant claims under examination (mirrored), these several independent claims herein (and all of their dependent claims 2 – 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20, via dependency) are all obvious in view of the allowed independent claims of the parent (i.e., parent 987’s independent claims 1, 5, and 9). This is because the above noted independent claims of the granted parent 987 patent respectively recite each and every limitation of the similarly styled instant independent claims herein, save herein the utilization of GPS, which is obvious. See Specification herein at [043], … (The attributes of communities and associated legal and calculation transformations may allow for superior communication, accountability and transactions to occur … the data transformation of a virtual hub sequence community object may allow for a plurality of network members 110, 112 to be assigned to virtual route communities 103 based on a plurality of attributes, prior GPS location histories, navigation search queries, and/or other attributes.). Claiming generic GPS to locate this or that shipment is obvious per this Application’s own specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected pursuant to 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 – 14 are directed to a method (process), claims 15 – 17 are directed to a system (with processors/memory, i.e., machine), and claims 18 – 20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (composition). The claims therefore constitute eligible statutory categories of an invention. (Step 1: YES).
Independent claim 1 here analyzed (it’s mirrored with independent claims 15 and 18), recites the limitations of:
1. (Currently Amended) A method, comprising: receiving transportation data from at least a subset of a plurality of users, wherein the transportation data corresponds to a plurality of virtual transportation modes configured for use by the plurality of users, wherein respective transportation data from a respective user comprises origin location data corresponding to a geographic origin and destination location data corresponding to a geographic destination for a respective virtual transportation mode of the respective user, wherein receiving the transportation data comprises: tracking the origin location data and the destination location data in real- time using one or more satellite navigation systems; determining a plurality of virtual hubs based on the transportation data, wherein the plurality of virtual hubs comprises one or more origin virtual hubs corresponding to at least the geographic origin and one or more destination virtual hubs corresponding to at least the geographic destination; determining a plurality of virtual hub routes based on the plurality of virtual hubs, wherein a respective virtual hub route corresponds to a geographic route from a location corresponding to a respective origin virtual hub to a location corresponding to a respective destination virtual hub; generating a plurality of virtual transportation capacity units for at least the subset of the plurality of users based on the transportation data, wherein a respective virtual transportation capacity unit for the respective user represents a fungible forward contract for the respective virtual transportation mode; and providing a virtual transportation forward market platform for trading the plurality of virtual transportation capacity units, comprising: receiving market depth data from the plurality of users, wherein the market depth data comprises data indicating a plurality of bid prices and data indicating a plurality of offer prices for the plurality of virtual transportation capacity units; and transmitting the market depth data to the plurality of users based on the one or more virtual hub routes, comprising: receiving constraint data from a first user of the plurality of users, wherein the constraint data indicates a selection by the first user of one or more conditions for the plurality of virtual transportation modes; receiving travel cost data from the first user, wherein the travel cost data comprises data relating to travel time, travel expenses, or combinations thereof; determining one or more optimized routes of the plurality of virtual hub routes based on an objective function, wherein the objective function uses the market depth data, the constraint data, the travel cost data, or combinations thereof; and transmitting at least a subset of the market depth data to the first user based on the one or more optimized routes. (and adding computer related items from independent mirrored claims 15 and 18, i.e., computing system, one or more processors; at least one memory comprising program instructions executable by the one or more processors, non-transitory computer-readable medium).
The claims as amended recite the abstract idea of:
tracking origin location data and the destination location data [and] determining a plurality of virtual hubs based on the data.
The above abstract idea recites a fundamental economic practice and/or commercial interaction.
The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice and/or commercial interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, independent claim 10 (and 1/18) recites an abstract idea.
The above bolded terms of the mirrored independent claims 1, 15, and 18 recite a computing system, one or more processors; at least one memory comprising program instructions executable by the one or more processors and a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and including (the recently added by amendment computer related terms of) origin location data and the destination location data in real-time using one or more satellite navigation systems. Said bolded independent claim terms are just applying generic computer components / computer driven systems / established generic GPS technology to perform the above noted abstract idea limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Any other potential computer related generic components claimed only serve to generally link the above noted abstract idea to them, without more. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
As to the dependent claims 2 – 14, 16 – 17, and 19 – 20, they further refine the above noted abstract idea set forth by the independent claims as follows:
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more conditions comprise cheapest transmission, single mode of transmission, multiple modes of transmission, fastest transmission, highest rated transmission, most available transmission, highest volume of participants for transmission, most frequent transmission, service level for transmission, pollution reduction, emissions reduction, highest safety and security level for transmission, or combinations thereof.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the objective function comprises a function configured to minimize at least the travel time, the travel expenses, a cost of bid prices, or combinations thereof.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein transmitting at least the subset of the market depth data to the first user based on the one or more optimized routes comprises: generating one or more graphical layers based on the market depth data, the constraint data, and the travel costs data; and transmitting the one or more graphical layers to a user device associated with the first user.
5. The method of claim 4, wherein the one or more graphical layers are configured to be integrated on to a navigational map interface being displayed by the user device.
6. The method of claim 5, wherein the one or more graphical layers comprise one or more visualizations corresponding to the one or more optimized routes.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of virtual transportation modes comprises one or more virtual seats corresponding to one or more computing devices, one or more virtual transportation vehicles configured for use by the plurality of users, one or more spaces along a packet moving medium, or combinations thereof.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the respective transportation data from the respective user further comprises: data corresponding to a virtual transportation capacity for the respective virtual transportation mode of the respective user; data corresponding to a virtual transportation availability for the respective virtual transportation mode of the respective user; or combinations thereof.
9. The method of claim 1, wherein: the geographic origin for the respective virtual transportation mode comprises a geographic location determined using the one or more satellite navigation systems, and wherein the geographic origin corresponds to a location of the respective user; and the virtual transportation availability for the respective virtual transportation mode comprises a date when the respective virtual transportation mode is available for use from the geographic origin, a time when the respective virtual transportation mode is available for use from the geographic origin, or combinations thereof.
10. The method of claim 1, wherein the fungible forward contract represented by the respective virtual transportation capacity unit comprises: one or more conditional attributes to provide substitutability with another virtual transportation capacity unit of the plurality of virtual transportation capacity units; a plurality of contract specifications, wherein the plurality of contract specifications comprises one or more cost of cover specifications, one or more liquidated damages specifications, one or more force majeure specifications, or combinations thereof; or combinations thereof.
11. The method of claim 1, wherein transmitting the market depth data to the plurality of users further comprises: receiving blockchain data corresponding to the plurality of users; and transmitting the market depth data to the plurality of users based on at least the blockchain data.
12. The method of claim 1, wherein the market depth data further comprises first data from the first user, wherein the first data indicates a first bid price or a first offer price for a first virtual transportation capacity unit of the plurality of virtual transportation capacity units, and wherein the first virtual transportation capacity unit corresponds to a respective optimized route.
13. The method of claim 12, further comprising: receiving transaction input data from a second user of the plurality of users, wherein the transaction input data comprises data indicating an acceptance by the second user of the first bid price or the first offer price for the first virtual transportation capacity unit; and arranging for a delivery of a first virtual transportation mode between the first user and the second user based on the first virtual transportation capacity unit.
14. The method of claim 13, wherein arranging for the delivery comprises transmitting real-time location data to the first user and to the second user, wherein the real-time location data corresponds to a geographic location of the first user and to a geographic location of the second user.
16. The computing system of claim 15, wherein the one or more conditions comprise cheapest transmission, single mode of transmission, multiple modes of transmission, fastest transmission, highest rated transmission, most available transmission, highest volume of participants for transmission, most frequent transmission, service level for transmission, pollution reduction, emissions reduction, highest safety and security level for transmission, or combinations thereof.
17. The computing system of claim 15, wherein the objective function comprises a function configured to minimize at least the travel time, the travel expenses, a cost of bid prices, or combinations thereof.
19. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 18, wherein the one or more conditions comprise cheapest transmission, single mode of transmission, multiple modes of transmission, fastest transmission, highest rated transmission, most available transmission, highest volume of participants for transmission, most frequent transmission, service level for transmission, pollution reduction, emissions reduction, highest safety and security level for transmission, or combinations thereof.
20. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 18, wherein the objective function comprises a function configured to minimize at least the travel time, the travel expenses, a cost of bid prices, or combinations thereof.
Examiner notes that the above bolded computer / computer driven terms set forth in the dependent claims, namely: one or more graphical layers to a user device, one or more graphical layers are configured to be integrated on to a navigational map interface being displayed by the user device, the one or more graphical layers, comprise one or more visualizations corresponding to the one or more optimized routes, one or more computing devices, one or more satellite navigation systems, blockchain data, computing system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium are all also being applied as tools to the abstract idea, without more. And while the just mentioned bolded terms do constitute additional elements, those additional elements only generally link the abstract idea articulated as above to generic computer technology, including the recently added GPS system via amendment, without more.
The computer hardware/software above bolded are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., generic processors, computer systems, and memories all performing generic computer functions), and the same amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component(s). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. That said, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additionally claimed elements in the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application).
All claims above reviewed also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. When considered separately and as an ordered combination, the claims do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to perform a judicial exception by applying generic computer components and thereby automating the process cannot provide an inventive concept.
This Application's lack of providing significantly more than the judicial exception is also referred to as its claims lacking an “inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool to the abstract idea is not indicative of significantly more. The above detailed non-computer related elements do not change the outcome of the analysis, as they simply further limit ways which the abstract idea may be performed. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception).
In summary, the claim set reviewed as above does not include any additional elements that integrate its abstract idea into a practical application, or that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Claims 1 – 20 are not patent-eligible pursuant to 35 USC 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 - 20 would be allowable if rewritten, amended, and/or otherwise modified so as to overcome the additional rejections herein pursuant to both 35 U.S.C. 101 and obviousness type double patenting. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Independently, while the claims' limitations most recently set forth herein may individually be disclosed by the prior art, the claims as a whole are not obvious because the examiner would have to improperly use their separate limitations as a road map to combine them.
CONCLUSION
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached form 892.
Strimling (US20100114790A1) – A system and method for aggregating delivery of goods or services may be implemented using an aggregate delivery coordination system accessed through a computer network by users interested in participating in pooling activities. The coordination system receives inputs from users interested in participating and presents pooling activity information to the users in response to the user inputs. The coordination system also coordinates pooling activities between respective groups of the users to establish pooling activity delivery options aggregating delivery of goods or services for the respective groups. The coordination system further notifies the groups of users of completed pooling activities and the delivery options established for those groups.
Narkulla (US20170293881A1) –The present disclosure provides methods and systems for the storage, ordering, listing, and delivery of products. Warehousing and delivery fulfillment systems are provided. Also provided are methods of warehousing and delivery fulfillment.
Matsuoja (US20140075528A1) – A method of logging a first user in to an computing device includes receiving a an image of the first user via a camera operably coupled with the computing device and determining an identity of the first user based on the received image. If the determined identity matches a predetermined identity, then, based at least on the identity of the first user matching the predetermined identity, the first user is logged in to the computing device.
Wall (US20020017977A1) – A method and system for controlling use of software and hardware, and for controlling access to and usability of commodities, by use of position (or location) dependent signals emanating from GPS, DPGS, GLONASS, and other sources, in conjunction with time and ephemeris data, wherein the receipt of position (or location) data is verified by reference to independent time and satellite ephemeris data, and where when position (or location) is established within preloaded boundaries, the system is rendered useful. A module which includes software and/or hardware modules (implemented as chip sets in combination with mechanical actuators), and a position (or location) determining system such as a global positioning receiver, built into each device and/or shipping container used to transport devices and/or commodities for control.
Dube (US20160321609A1) - A method includes obtaining a demand specification specifying a plurality of multi-modal freight shipment scenarios, each of the multi-modal freight shipment scenarios including at least a destination and an origin, generating, with a booking tool, a plurality of feasible multi-modal routes for each of the multi-modal freight shipment scenarios using route information from a carrier database, determining a plurality of business compliant routes among the plurality of feasible multi-modal routes for each of the multi-modal freight shipment scenarios using a rules specification specifying different business rules for each of the multi-modal freight shipment scenarios, comparing the multi-modal freight shipment scenarios by the business compliant routes determined for each respective one of the multi-modal freight shipment scenarios, and identifying at least one business rule, among the different business rules, affecting an aggregate cost-savings using the comparison of the multi-modal freight shipment scenarios.
Burnett (US20160224935A1) - A system for optimizing selection of a carrier for a shipment at a shipment location includes an interaction optimization platform. The interaction optimization platform has a carrier interface and a progress interface. The carrier interface is configured to display, on a carrier display device, carrier data fields for receiving carrier information regarding equipment capabilities and/or availability corresponding to a carrier. The progress interface is configured to display, on the shipper display device, shipment information comprising the shipment location. A server is configured to, by execution of the interaction optimization platform, perform operations including receiving electronic data comprising the shipment information. Also, the server compares the shipment location to locations stored in a server memory. Data is transmitted to the carrier interface that includes an indication that the shipment location is within a predefined distance from at least one of the locations and also transmitting location features including a location name.
Pollak (US20140324633A1) - A computer system and associated methods for implementing an online freight services marketplace. Freight service offerings posted to the marketplace by carriers are matched to freight service requests from shippers. Compound service offerings are formed from freight service offerings having service parameters (lane, space, transit time, availability, price, and status) that accommodate load parameters (origin, destination, size, and weight) of the freight service request. Compound service offerings selected by the shipper are provisioned and reserved for subsequent dispatch. Role-based access controls within the marketplace restrict visibility of confidential information, such as carrier pricing and shipper identity. Automatic freight transaction facilitation includes shipper payment processing and shipping document generation. Status tracking capability may be augmented with alert messaging and/or in-transit re-planning to minimize the impact of common issues that threaten to defeat a shipment in progress.
Betancourt (US20120078743A1) - A marketplace may be provided to allow posting of transport jobs and bidding on various aspects of the transport jobs. For example, a carrier may bid on transportation of cargo while fuel providers may bid on the fuel provision. In some arrangements, the carriers may solicit bids for a fueling portion of a transport job that they wish to bid on, have already bid on or have won. Transport may correspond to the physical conveyance of cargo from origin to destination and may include vehicle costs, driver costs, carrier fees and the like. Fuel costs may refer to the cost of fuel and/or pumping fees. A system may automatically generate suggested routes for transport and determine a projected amount of fuel needed for the trip. Additionally, the system may automatically identify potential or projected refueling locations and select refueling stations or providers based thereon.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW COBB whose telephone number is (571) 272-3850. The examiner can normally be reached 9 - 5, M - F.
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 call examiner Cobb as above, or 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, Peter Nolan, can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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.
/MATTHEW COBB/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
