DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the submission filed on 7/22/2025. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 .
Response to Arguments- Drawings
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the amendments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 112
Applicant's arguments filed 7/22/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that sufficient structure is provided to perform the means-plus-function language of claims 9, 13, 15, and 16, in the form of algorithms. However algorithms are not considered structure, they are considered software.
In addition, certain rejections have not been addressed in the filed amendments. See below.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 7/22/2025 have been fully considered.
The rejections for claims 1-8 are withdrawn. However, claims 9 and 17 are directed towards a computer aided design system and a computer program product. Claims 9 and 17 have been amended to recite “the modification and the one or more additional modification to be physically implemented…” First, this is intended use of the modified design. Second, it is unclear how a CAD system or a computer program product could possibly physically implement modifications to a ventilation system. The rejections for claims 9 and 17 are maintained.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a calculation module configured to calculate”, “design module configured to invoke”, and “a suggestion-generation module configured to provide a suggestion” in claims 9, 13, 15, and 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof: however, a review of the specification for physical components that perform the functionalities cannot be located in the instant disclosure. At best, paragraphs [0182]-[0194] and Figure 18 discloses a generic environment where the invention can be carried out. However, there are no recitations on which elements in Figure 18 performs the above functionalities. Therefore a rejection under 112(b) is provided below.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, line 13 recites “an air” which is grammatically incorrect. Merely reciting “with respect to air flowing” would be sufficient. Claims 9 and 17 are rejected for similar reasoning. Claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Claim 4 recites mathematical formulas which are fuzzy, blurry and difficult to discern. Claims 12 and 18 are rejected for similar reasoning.
Claim 6 recites “approximately 1200 viri per hour”. The term “approximately” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claims 14 and 20 are rejected for similar reasoning.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a calculation module configured to calculate”, “design module configured to invoke”, and “a suggestion-generation module configured to provide a suggestion” in claims 9, 13, 15, and 16. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof: however, a review of the specification for physical components that perform the functionalities cannot be located in the instant disclosure. At best, paragraphs [0182]-[0194] and Figure 18 discloses a generic environment where the invention can be carried out. However, there are no recitations on which elements in Figure 18 performs the above functionalities. Therefore the claim language is not supported by the disclosure with sufficient structural support.
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 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of
nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements
that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106).
Step 1: With respect to claims 1, 9 and 17, applying step 1, the preamble of independent claims 1, 9 and 17 claim a method, a system and a computer program product. As such these claims fall within the statutory categories of process, machine and article of manufacture.
Step 2A, prong one: In order to apply step 2A, a recitation of claim 9 is copied below. The limitations of the claim that describe an abstract idea are bolded.
A computer-aided design ("CAD") system for design of a ventilation system for a structure to be occupied by individuals, the system comprising:
a display configured to display the design and to accept modification to the design, the design being displayed based on input data including arrangement of spaces of the structure, operating parameters of the ventilation system, and locations and relative positions of an uninfected individual not infected with a contaminant and one or more infected individuals infected with the contaminant in the structure with respect to an air flowing in the structure and influenced by the ventilation system;
a calculation module configured to calculate an inverse protection factor for the structure using a lumped element model, the inverse protection factor being an inverse of a protection factor which is a ratio of the contaminant which the one or more infected individuals exhale in the structure and the contaminant which the uninfected individual inhales in the structure, the inverse protection factor being calculated based on the operating parameters of the ventilation system, the arrangement of spaces of the structure, and the locations and relative positions of the infected and uninfected individuals in the structure with respect to the air flowing therein and influenced by the ventilation system (Mathematical concepts - Mathematical Calculation – MPEP 2106.04{a}{2}{1}{C} (i-vi)); and
a design module configured to invoke the display, for making the modification to the design (mental process – observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), and to invoke the calculation module upon detecting the modification made to the design (mental process – observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion);
the calculation module being configured to compare the calculated inverse protection factor to a preset criterion (mental process – observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
the design module being configured to invoke the display, if the calculated inverse protection factor fails to meet the preset criterion, to accept a modification to the design to change at least one of the arrangement of spaces of the structure, or one or more of the operating parameters of the ventilation system, or locations or relative positions of the infected and uninfected individuals in the structure, and being configured to make the modification (mental process – observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
the design module being configured to invoke the calculation module to calculate a modified inverse protection factor for the structure based on the modification (Mathematical concepts - Mathematical Calculation – MPEP 2106.04{a}{2}{1}{C} (i-vi)) and compare the modified inverse protection factor to the preset criterion (mental process – observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), and
the design module being configured to make one or more additional modifications (mental process – observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) and performing one or more additional calculations (Mathematical concepts - Mathematical Calculation – MPEP 2106.04{a}{2}{1}{C} (i-vi)) by invoking the display and the calculation module until the modified inverse protection factor meets the preset criterion, the modification and the one or more additional modifications to be physically implemented for the uninfected individual in the structure having the air flowing therein and influenced by the ventilation system.
The limitations as analyzed include concepts directed to the "Mathematical Concepts"
grouping of abstract ideas (including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or
equations, mathematical calculations) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I). A claim that
recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable
interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical
concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as
multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or
number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation (see MPEP
2106.04(a)(2)(1)(C). Thus, limitations noted above also fall into the "Mathematical Concepts" groupings of abstract ideas.
The limitations as analyzed include concepts directed to the "mental process" groupings
of abstract ideas performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). The claim involves comparing and changing an arrangement of spaces, parameters, locations, or positions in a structure. The steps are simple enough/broadly claimed that they could be performed mentally or with pen and paper and spaces, parameters, locations or positions in the structure. Thus, limitations noted above also fall into the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas.
Step 2A, prong two: Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea
only present insignificant extra-solution activity, generic computing components and general field of use. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations: “A computer-aided design ("CAD") system for design” (general field of use - see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h)), “display configured to display the design and to accept modification to the design” (generic computing components merely carrying out the abstract idea - see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and (b), insignificant extra-solution activity - mere data gathering/output MPEP 2106.05(g))), “a calculation module configured to calculate” (generic computing components merely carrying out the abstract idea - see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and (b)), “a design module configured to invoke the display” (generic computing components merely carrying out the abstract idea - see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and (b)), “the calculation module being configured to compare” (generic computing components merely carrying out the abstract idea - see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and (b)), “the design module being configured to invoke the display” (generic computing components merely carrying out the abstract idea - see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and (b)), “the design module being configured to invoke the calculation module” (generic computing components merely carrying out the abstract idea - see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and (b)), “the design module being configured to make one or more additional modifications” (generic computing components merely carrying out the abstract idea - see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and (b)), “performing one or more additional calculations by invoking the user-interface module and the calculation module” (generic computing components merely carrying out the abstract idea - see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and (b)), and “the modification and the one or more additional modifications to be physically implemented for the uninfected individual in the structure having the air flowing therein and influenced by the ventilation system” (intended use, no patentable weight).
When viewed in combination or as a whole, the recited additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Moving on to step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more
than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as "apply it" or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations is considered directed towards field of use, generic computer components carrying out the abstract idea and data gathering and output. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h). Furthermore, as Berkheimer evidence that the claim element “display configured to display the design and to accept modification to the design” are Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional, MPEP § 2106.05(d) (II) provides support that mere data outputting is well understood, routine, and conventional: "The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well- understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra- solution activity:
• Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather
data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary
computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d
607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image
transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d
1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google,
Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives
and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
• Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP
Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788
F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93
• Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115
USPQ2d at 1092-93
For the foregoing reasons, claim 9 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 17 is rejected for similar reasoning.
Claims 10-14 are further directed towards concepts directed to the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping of abstract ideas (including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I). A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable
interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical
concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as
multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or
number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation (see MPEP
2106.04(a)(2)(1)(C). Thus, limitations noted above also fall into the "Mathematical Concepts" groupings of abstract ideas. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 15 recites concepts directed to the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). The claim involves comparing and changing an arrangement of spaces, parameters, locations, or positions in a structure. The steps are simple enough/broadly claimed that they could be performed mentally or with pen and paper and spaces, parameters, locations or positions in the structure. Thus, limitations noted above also fall into the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 16 recites concepts directed to the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). The claim involves providing suggestions for modifying the design. The steps are simple enough/broadly claimed that they could be performed mentally or with pen and paper. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present insignificant generic computing components. When viewed in combination or as a whole, the recited additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations is considered directed towards field of use, generic computer components.
Claims 18-19 are further directed towards concepts directed to the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping of abstract ideas (including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I). A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable
interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical
concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as
multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or
number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation (see MPEP
2106.04(a)(2)(1)(C). Thus, limitations noted above also fall into the "Mathematical Concepts" groupings of abstract ideas. his judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present insignificant generic computing components. When viewed in combination or as a whole, the recited additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations is considered directed towards field of use, generic computer components.
Claim 20 recites concepts directed to the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). The claim involves comparing and changing an arrangement of spaces, parameters, locations, or positions in a structure. The steps are simple enough/broadly claimed that they could be performed mentally or with pen and paper and spaces, parameters, locations or positions in the structure. Thus, limitations noted above also fall into the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas. his judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present insignificant generic computing components. When viewed in combination or as a whole, the recited additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations is considered directed towards field of use, generic computer components.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 contain allowable subject matter. The closest prior art of record, Deng, teaches a lumped mathematical model for urban ventilation. However, this reference and the remaining prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest
(claims 1, 9 and 17)
“calculating an inverse protection factor for the structure using a lumped element model, the inverse protection factor being an inverse of a protection factor which is a ratio of the contaminant which the one or more infected individuals exhale in the structure and the contaminant which the uninfected individual inhales in the structure, the inverse protection factor being calculated based on the operating parameters of the ventilation system, the arrangement of spaces of the structure, and the locations and relative positions of the infected and uninfected individuals in the structure with respect to the air flowing therein and influenced by the ventilation system;
comparing the calculated inverse protection factor to a preset criterion; and
physically changing at least one of the arrangement of spaces of the structure, or one or more of the operating parameters of the ventilation system, or locations or relative positions of the infected and uninfected individuals in the structure, and repeating the calculating, the comparing, and the physically changing until the calculated inverse protection factor meets the preset criterion for the uninfected individual in the structure having the air flowing therein and influenced by the ventilation system”,
in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention. It is for these reasons that the applicant’s invention defines over the prior art of record.
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 NITHYA J. MOLL whose telephone number is (571)270-1003. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 571-272-3676. 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.
/NITHYA J. MOLL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189