DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the claim amendments filed on December 03, 2025.
Claim 10 has been canceled.
Claims 16-27 have been withdrawn.
Claims 1-9 and 11-34 are pending.
Claims 1-9, 11-15 and 28-34 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on December 03, 2025 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
With respect to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant argues: A. Claims, as amended, are not directed to an abstract idea...These claimed operations are not "legal interactions" or mere "organizing human activity." Rather, they define a specific technological process that (i) transforms ballot selection data, after election-specific post-processing, into a static, human-readable digital record devoid of non-selected options; (ii) persists that record prior to review; and (iii) cryptographically binds he stored record and the subsequent voter verification to provide tamper-evident integrity for a voter-verified digital audit trail. This architecture is inextricably tied to computer technology and improves the functioning of voting system audit mechanisms, distinguishing the claims from cases where generic components simply automate an abstract workflow. See Applicant’s arguments pages 11-12.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Under Step 2A: Prong 1, Examiner respectfully notes that claims 1 and 28, as amended, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of generating and storing electronic document; without significantly more. The series of steps recited in claims 1 and 28, as amended, describe the abstract idea of generating and storing electronic document, which correspond to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”: carrying out a legal interactions between parties. Furthermore, a voting system comprising: at least one processor, user interface and memory do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea.
Moreover, Examiner respectfully notes that the claims are first analyzed in the absence of technology to determine if it recites an abstract idea. The additional limitations of technology are then considered to determine if it restricts the claim from reciting an abstract idea. In this case, and as discussed in the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, it is determined that the additional limitations of technology do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully notes that the recited features in the limitations: “identifying one or more votes made by the voter at a voter interface of a voting system, at least one of the one or more votes selected from two or more choices available for the corresponding vote; generating a digital image that lists the identified one or more votes made by the voter from a ballot completed by the voter, wherein the identified one or more votes are listed in the digital image without any non-selected choices available for the corresponding vote, and wherein the digital image is a static digital image that is different than an image of the ballot and that includes the identified one or more votes in human-readable form subsequent to post-voting ballot processing of the completed ballot, the post-voting ballot processing including one or more of a preferential voting reallocation process, an assignment of one or more write-in candidates, or a removal of one or more votes based on voter ineligibility; storing the digital image of the one or more votes in as a digital image file in a memory, wherein the storing comprises generating a cryptographic hash of the digital image file and storing the cryptographic hash with the digital image file to prevent alteration of the digital image file and provide tamper-evident security for the digital image; displaying, after storing the digital image file, the digital image to the voter using the voter interface; prompting, via the voter interface, the voter to provide a voter verification of the one or more votes displayed in the digital image; receiving the voter verification at the voter interface; and storing the voter verification of the digital image containing one or more votes in the memory to provide a voter-verified digital audit trail file that includes the digital image file of the one or more votes made by the voter and a record of the voter verification, wherein the record of the verification is linked to the digital image file in the voter-verified digital audit trail file.” (with the exception of the italicized terms above) are simply making use of a computer and the computer limitations do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea as discussed below] under Step 2A-Prong 1 of the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
Hence, Examiner has also considered each and every arguments under Step 2A-Prong 1 and concludes that these arguments are not persuasive. For example, under Step 2A-Prong 1, Examiner considers each and every limitation to determine if the claim recites an abstract idea. In this case, it is determined that the claim recites an abstract idea and the additional limitations of at least one processor, user interface and memory (e.g., a computer) does not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. The recited steps, as amended, are abstract in nature as there are no technical/technology improvements as a result of these steps. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea. Whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application by providing technical/technology improvements are considered under Step 2A-Prong 2.
Applicant argues: B. The claims, as amended, integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application even if the Office were to view certain aspects as involving an abstract concept (e.g., creating a record of selections), the additional elements, in combination, integrate any such concept into a practical application pursuant to Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility framework. The claims recite a static digital image generated "subsequent to post-voting ballot processing" and stored "prior to the display," preventing dynamic reconstruction and forcing voter verification against the persisted record (see published Fig. 5; [0021]-[0025]); a cryptographic hash (digital signature) of the stored digital image file generated and stored with the image and the voter verification ([0026], [0034]; claims 6-7, 30-31), creating a tamper-evident binding between the content presented to the voter and the verification stored; and a linked audit trail record combining the hashed digital image file and the voter verification, which can be used for recounts and remote audits while confirming integrity ([0005]-[0007], [0026])… Claims 1 and 28 recite concrete integrity mechanisms (cryptographic hash of the stored image file linked to verification) that improve the technology of digital audit trails, not merely "organize human activity." See Applicant’s arguments page 12.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Under Step 2A: Prong II, and unlike Example 35 of the USPTO's Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, Examiner respectfully notes that there is no improved technology in simply, identifying one or more votes made by the voter at a voter; generating a digital image that lists the identified one or more votes made by the voter and wherein the digital image is a static digital image; storing the digital image of the one or more votes in as a digital image file in a memory, and generating a cryptographic hash of the digital image file and storing the cryptographic hash; displaying, after storing the digital image file; prompting, the voter to provide a voter verification; receiving the voter verification; and storing the voter verification. The disclosed invention simply cannot be equated to improvement to technological practices or computers. There is no technical improvement at all. Instead, Applicant recites “identifying one or more votes made by the voter at a voter interface of a voting system, at least one of the one or more votes selected from two or more choices available for the corresponding vote; generating a digital image that lists the identified one or more votes made by the voter from a ballot completed by the voter, wherein the identified one or more votes are listed in the digital image without any non-selected choices available for the corresponding vote, and wherein the digital image is a static digital image that is different than an image of the ballot and that includes the identified one or more votes in human-readable form subsequent to post-voting ballot processing of the completed ballot, the post-voting ballot processing including one or more of a preferential voting reallocation process, an assignment of one or more write-in candidates, or a removal of one or more votes based on voter ineligibility; storing the digital image of the one or more votes in as a digital image file in a memory, wherein the storing comprises generating a cryptographic hash of the digital image file and storing the cryptographic hash with the digital image file to prevent alteration of the digital image file and provide tamper-evident security for the digital image; displaying, after storing the digital image file, the digital image to the voter using the voter interface; prompting, via the voter interface, the voter to provide a voter verification of the one or more votes displayed in the digital image; receiving the voter verification at the voter interface; and storing the voter verification of the digital image containing one or more votes in the memory to provide a voter-verified digital audit trail file that includes the digital image file of the one or more votes made by the voter and a record of the voter verification, wherein the record of the verification is linked to the digital image file in the voter-verified digital audit trail file.” The recited features in the limitations do not result in computer functionality or technical improvement. Examiner respectfully notes that Applicant is simply using a computer to input, process, output and store data. The recited features in the limitations does not disclose a technical solution to technical problem.
Moreover, there is no technology/technical improvement as a result of implementing the abstract idea. The recited limitations in the pending claims simply amount to the abstract idea of generating and storing electronic document. There is no computer functionality improvement or technology improvement. The claim does not provide a technical solution to a technical problem. If there is an improvement, it is to the abstract idea and not to technology. Additionally, Examiner notes that it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the judicial exception itself (e.g., legal interactions between parties) is not an improvement in technology (See, MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)). Thus, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; and these arguments are not persuasive.
Claims 1 and 28, as amended, recites steps at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and outputting, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and output. See MPEP 2106.05. The claim simply makes use of a computer as a tool to apply the abstract idea without transforming the abstract idea into a patent eligible subject matter. Thus, these arguments are not persuasive.
Furthermore, these steps, as amended, are recited as being performed by a at least one processor, user interface and memory. The at least one processor, user interface and memory are recited at a high level of generality, and are used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving, processing, outputting and storing data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Amended claims 1 and 28, recites at least one processor, user interface and memory, which are simply used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong 1, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, the recitation of at least one processor, user interface and memory in the limitations merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. The claims, as amended, merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment; and thus, fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES). Hence, claims 1 and 28, as amended, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, these arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: C. The claims, as amended, recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea (Step 2B) Under Step 2B, the amended claims include an inventive concept. The Examiner characterized the prior claims as using a processor/memory merely to implement an abstract idea. That characterization does not apply to the amended claims, which recite cryptographically hashing the stored, static digital image file and storing that hash with the verification in the audit trail. This is not a generic "store/display" operation; it is a specific integrity mechanism that creates a tamper-evident binding between (i) the exact static image file persisted prior to voter review and (ii) the later-stored verification record. The specification confirms this is done to "confirm that the record was not subjected to tampering and changes after the voter has confirmed the selections" ([0026]) and that the digital signature "may be a cryptographic hash of the digital image [and] the voter verification" ([0034]). The memory stores "the digital image, voter verification, and the digital signature" and the claims recite linking the record of voter verification to the digital image file. This cryptographic binding, together with the constraints that the image is static, different than the ballot image, lists only selected choices, is stored prior to display, and reflects post- voting processing, confines the claims to a particular, useful application and reflects an improvement in the technical field of voting system audit security.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Under Step 2B, Examiner respectfully notes that all of Applicant's arguments have been reviewed, and the inventive concept cannot be furnished by a judicial exception. The improvements argued are to the abstract idea and not to technology. The technical limitations are simply utilized as a tool to implement the abstract idea without adding significantly more. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea, and hence these arguments are not persuasive. The presence of a computer does not make the claimed solution necessarily rooted in computer technology. Furthermore, Examiner notes that the courts have determined that processing and hashing data is well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of a computer when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Thus, the recited combination of steps in claims 1 and 28, operate in a well-understood, routine, conventional and generic way. As noted above, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of at least one processor, user interface and memory limitations are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment.
Applying the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility here, and as explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements: at least one processor, user interface and memory, are at best mere instructions to “apply” the abstract idea, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements: at least one processor, user interface and memory, were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary for gathering, processing, outputting and storing data. The evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the claims’ limitations are recited at a high level of generality. These elements simply amount to receiving and outputting data and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of a computer/processor to perform recited limitations, as amended, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO).
Hence, Examiner respectfully declines Applicant’s request to withdraw the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-9, 11-15 and 28-34.
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 1-9, 11-15 and 28-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-9 and 11-15 are directed to a method, and claims 28-34 are directed to a system comprising at least one processor, user interface and memory. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The claims recite an abstract idea of generating and storing electronic document. Specifically, the claims recite “identifying one or more votes made by the voter at a voter interface of a voting system, at least one of the one or more votes selected from two or more choices available for the corresponding vote; generating a digital image that lists the identified one or more votes made by the voter from a ballot completed by the voter, wherein the identified one or more votes are listed in the digital image without any non-selected choices available for the corresponding vote, and wherein the digital image is a static digital image that is different than an image of the ballot and that includes the identified one or more votes in human-readable form subsequent to post-voting ballot processing of the completed ballot, the post-voting ballot processing including one or more of a preferential voting reallocation process, an assignment of one or more write-in candidates, or a removal of one or more votes based on voter ineligibility; storing the digital image of the one or more votes in as a digital image file in a memory, wherein the storing comprises generating a cryptographic hash of the digital image file and storing the cryptographic hash with the digital image file to prevent alteration of the digital image file and provide tamper-evident security for the digital image; displaying, after storing the digital image file, the digital image to the voter using the voter interface; prompting, via the voter interface, the voter to provide a voter verification of the one or more votes displayed in the digital image; receiving the voter verification at the voter interface; and storing the voter verification of the digital image containing one or more votes in the memory to provide a voter-verified digital audit trail file that includes the digital image file of the one or more votes made by the voter and a record of the voter verification, wherein the record of the verification is linked to the digital image file in the voter-verified digital audit trail file.” (with the exception of the italicized terms above), which is grouped within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(a)) because a process for carrying out a legal interactions between parties that involves communicating data needed to complete a voting process. Additionally, the system comprising at least one processor, user interface and memory do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04). (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as at least one processor, user interface and memory merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and generally link(s) the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, the at least one processor, user interface and memory perform(s) the steps or functions of “identifying one or more votes made by the voter at a voter interface of a voting system, at least one of the one or more votes selected from two or more choices available for the corresponding vote; generating a digital image that lists the identified one or more votes made by the voter from a ballot completed by the voter, wherein the identified one or more votes are listed in the digital image without any non-selected choices available for the corresponding vote, and wherein the digital image is a static digital image that is different than an image of the ballot and that includes the identified one or more votes in human-readable form subsequent to post-voting ballot processing of the completed ballot, the post-voting ballot processing including one or more of a preferential voting reallocation process, an assignment of one or more write-in candidates, or a removal of one or more votes based on voter ineligibility; storing the digital image of the one or more votes in as a digital image file in a memory, wherein the storing comprises generating a cryptographic hash of the digital image file and storing the cryptographic hash with the digital image file to prevent alteration of the digital image file and provide tamper-evident security for the digital image; displaying, after storing the digital image file, the digital image to the voter using the voter interface; prompting, via the voter interface, the voter to provide a voter verification of the one or more votes displayed in the digital image; receiving the voter verification at the voter interface; and storing the voter verification of the digital image containing one or more votes in the memory to provide a voter-verified digital audit trail file that includes the digital image file of the one or more votes made by the voter and a record of the voter verification, wherein the record of the verification is linked to the digital image file in the voter-verified digital audit trail file.” The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (See MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (See MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (See MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claims 1 and 28 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
The claims does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.05), the additional element(s) of using at least one processor, user interface and memory to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of generating and storing electronic document. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the at least one processor, user interface and memory perform(s) the steps or functions of “identifying one or more votes made by the voter at a voter interface of a voting system, at least one of the one or more votes selected from two or more choices available for the corresponding vote; generating a digital image that lists the identified one or more votes made by the voter from a ballot completed by the voter, wherein the identified one or more votes are listed in the digital image without any non-selected choices available for the corresponding vote, and wherein the digital image is a static digital image that is different than an image of the ballot and that includes the identified one or more votes in human-readable form subsequent to post-voting ballot processing of the completed ballot, the post-voting ballot processing including one or more of a preferential voting reallocation process, an assignment of one or more write-in candidates, or a removal of one or more votes based on voter ineligibility; storing the digital image of the one or more votes in as a digital image file in a memory, wherein the storing comprises generating a cryptographic hash of the digital image file and storing the cryptographic hash with the digital image file to prevent alteration of the digital image file and provide tamper-evident security for the digital image; displaying, after storing the digital image file, the digital image to the voter using the voter interface; prompting, via the voter interface, the voter to provide a voter verification of the one or more votes displayed in the digital image; receiving the voter verification at the voter interface; and storing the voter verification of the digital image containing one or more votes in the memory to provide a voter-verified digital audit trail file that includes the digital image file of the one or more votes made by the voter and a record of the voter verification, wherein the record of the verification is linked to the digital image file in the voter-verified digital audit trail file.” These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of generating and storing electronic document. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding dependent claims 2-9, 11-15 and 29-34
Claim 2 recites: generating a cast vote record at the voting system based at least in part on the verified one or more votes made by the voter; and providing the cast vote record to a tabulation system.
Claim 3 recites: linking the stored digital image and the voter verification to the cast vote record.
Claim 4 recites: the generating of the cast vote record is initiated only after the voter verification of the digital image.
Claim 5 recites: the digital image identifying the one or more votes made by the voter contains information in a text format that can be interpreted by a voter, and contains information in a machine-readable code that can be interpreted by a scanner or computer.
Claim 6 recites: generating a digital signature for the digital image and the voter verification; appending the digital signature to the digital image and the voter verification; and storing the digital image, voter verification, and the digital signature in the memory.
Claims 7 and 31 recite: wherein the digital signature comprises a cryptographic hash of the digital image, the voter verification of the one or more votes, or any combination thereof.
Claims 8 and 32 recite: wherein the digital image and the voter verification are encrypted and stored.
Claim 9 recites: performing ballot processing on the one or more received votes; updating the digital image and the voter verification of the one or more votes based at least in part on the ballot processing; and storing the updated digital image and voter verification of the one or more votes in the memory to provide the voter-verified digital audit trail file.
Claims 11 and 33 recite: printing the digital image and the voter verification; and providing the printed digital image and voter verification as a voter verified paper audit trail.
Claim 12 recites: re-tallying votes for one or more races or ballot issues using the printed digital image and the voter verification as part of a re-count.
Claim 13 recites: wherein the identifying the one or more votes comprises: optically scanning a voter-marked paper ballot; and determining the one or more votes based at least in part on markings on the voter-marked paper ballot.
Claim 14 recites: wherein the identifying the one or more votes comprises: receiving one or more selections from the voter on a direct record electronic (DRE) voter interface of the one or more votes.
Claims 15 and 34 recite: wherein the digital image comprises a bitmap image, a jpeg image, a tiff image, a gif image, a png image, or a pdf image.
Claim 29 recites: the vote identification component is further configured to generate a cast vote record based at least in part on the identified one or more votes made by the voter and the voter verification, and link the stored digital image and the voter verification to the cast vote record.
Claim 30 recites: a digital signature component that generates a digital signature for the digital image and the voter verification and appends the digital signature to the digital image and the voter verification; and wherein the memory stores the digital image, voter verification, and the digital signature in the voter-verified digital audit trail file.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-15 and 29-34 further describe the abstract idea of generating and storing electronic document. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAHED ALI whose telephone number is (571)270-1085. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 5:00 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 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, Neha Patel can be reached on (571) 270-1492. 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.
/JAHED ALI/Examiner, Art Unit 3699
/NEHA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3699