DETAILED ACTION
This action is made in response to the amendments/remarks filed on November 14, 2025. This action is made final.
Claims 1, 3-8, 11-15, and 18-25 are pending. Claims 2, 9-10, and 16 have been previously cancelled. Claim 17 is presently cancelled. Claim 25 is newly added. Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 18-23 have been amended. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent claims.
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
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument with respect to the previous art rejection Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) and (c) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references and because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Applicant’s argument with respect to the previous 101 rejection has been fully considered but is not persuasive.
With respect to the 101 rejection, Applicant argues the claims are integrated into a practical application because the steps of the claims are performed by the same device and are, therefore, integrated into a practical application because it improves the privacy and security of electronically handling health sensitive information. However, the examiner, respectfully, disagrees.
MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states “the word ‘improvements’ in the context of this consideration is limited to improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology/technical field, whether in Step 2A Prong Two or in Step 2B.” Here, there is no improvement to the computer nor is there an improvement to another technology. Improving maintaining the privacy and security of health sensitive documents is not an improvement to a computer, other technology, or technical field nor is it reasonably understood to a problem arising in technology. Rather, the claims are confined to a general-purpose computer and merely uses the computer as a tool, wherein any purported improvement is to the abstract idea of managing health data. Furthermore, insomuch as the data is “electronic” or, electronically handled, is merely a natural consequence of the abstract idea being applied on a generic purpose computer. Accordingly, there is no improvement to the computer, another technology, or technical field present in the claims, and therefore, is no practical application.
Furthermore, insomuch as Applicant states the invention prevents data interception during the transmission and interception of sensitive data, it is noted that the originally filed specification does not support Applicant’s argued problem. Rather, the originally filed specification states the invention is directed towards permitting a user to download a copy of their health record where they can process and organize their health data (e.g., see [0002]). Accordingly, there is no improvement to the computer, another technology, or technical field present in the claims, and therefore, is no practical application.
Accordingly, for at least these reasons, the previous 101 rejection is maintained.
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, 3-8, 11-15, and 17-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 3-7, and 21-25 recite a method of providing health data based on user customization, which is within the statutory category of a process. Claims 8 and 11-14 recites a non-transitory computer readable memory for providing health data based on user customization, which is within the statutory class of a manufacture. Claims 15 and 17-20 recites a device providing health data based on user customization, which is within the statutory class of a manufacture.
Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. ___ (2014). Claims 1, 3-8, 11-15, and 17-25, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 1:
The bolded limitations of:
Claims 1, 8, and 15 (claim 1 being representative)
receiving, by a user device, first health data from an electronic health record system, wherein the first health data belongs to a user that is associated with the user device; receiving, via a first input from the user received at the user device, a user- provided customization request relating to customizing a portion of the health data; generating, by the user device, a first user domain concept (UDC) node of a personalized data graph based at least in part on the user-provided customization request to customize a portion of the first health data and generate a first customized portion of the first health data; receiving, by the user device, a second health data belonging to the user from a data source different than the EHR system; determining, by the user device, a relationship between the second health data and the first customized portion of the first health data; updating, by the user device, the UDC node to include relationship information that represents the relationship between the first customized portion and the second health data; and populating, by the user device at a user interface of the device, a representation of the UDC node..
as presently drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the noted computer elements, the claim encompasses a person following rules or instructions to store and process data in the manner described in the abstract idea, such as a user organizing their health data into user-customized groups. The examiner further notes that “methods of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer (see October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility at Pg. 5). If the claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing persona behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no meaningful limitations that transform the exception into a patent eligible application. The additional elements merely amount to instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (“a user device”, “a user interface”, “non-transitory computer readable medium”, “a memory”, and “a processor”—all recited at a high level of generality). Although they have and execute instructions to perform the abstract idea itself, this also does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it merely amounts to instructions to "apply it." (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) indicating mere instructions to apply an abstract idea does not amount to integrating the abstract idea into a practical application). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The “electronic health record system” is not a generic computer component; however, it is recited at a high levels of generality and similarly amount to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) indicating generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not amount to integrating the abstract idea into a practical application).
The claims only manipulate abstract data elements into another form. They do not set forth improvements to another technological field or the functioning of the computer itself and instead use computer elements as tools in a conventional way to improve the functioning of the abstract idea identified above. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. None of the additional elements recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers." Alice Corp., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
At the levels of abstraction described above, the claims do not readily lend themselves to a finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. Therefore, the analysis proceeds to step 2B. See BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The Enfish claims, understood in light of their specific limitations, were unambiguously directed to an improvement in computer capabilities. Here, in contrast, the claims and their specific limitations do not readily lend themselves to a step-one finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. We therefore defer our consideration of the specific claim limitations’ narrowing effect for step two.") (citations omitted).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as presented in Step 2A Prong 2. Moreover, the additional elements recited are known and conventional generic computing elements (“a user device”, “a user interface”, “non-transitory computer readable medium”, “a memory”, and “a processor”—see Specification Fig. 7, [0095]-[0098] describing the various components as general purpose, common, standard, known to one of ordinary skill, and at a high level of generality, and in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements). Therefore, these additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The Federal Circuit has recognized that "an invocation of already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance, for use in carrying out improved mathematical calculations, amounts to a recitation of what is 'well-understood, routine, [and] conventional.'" SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alteration in original) (citing Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)). Apart from the instructions to implement the abstract idea, they only serve to perform well-understood functions (e.g., receiving, translating, and displaying data—see Specification above as well as Alice Corp.; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) covering the well-known nature of these computer functions).
Furthermore, as discussed above, the additional element of an “electronic health record system” is recited at high levels of generality and were determined to generally link the abstract idea into a particular technological environment or field of use. This additional element have been re-evaluated under step 2B and have also been found insufficient to provide significantly more. (See MPEP 2106.05(A) indicating generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not amount to significantly more). Furthermore, the Background section of Applicant’s Specification (e.g., see [0020]) indicates that EHR systems are well-understood, routing, and conventional in the field. (See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) indicating that well-understood, routine, and conventional activities cannot provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims
The limitations of dependent but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already presented. Claims 3-7 (11-14 and 16-20) merely recite establishing different relationships between the health data and user customization, claim 21 merely recites searching and updating the UDC based on the search, claims 22-23 merely recite storing additional data (health-related information) and for multiple people and providing the data to another user, which covers a method of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions).
Claims 23 and 25 recite the additional element of “sensor”. This additional element is considered to “apply it” under both the practical application and significantly more analysis, as detailed in the analysis above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8, 11-13, 15, 17-19, 21, 22, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Venon et al. (USPPN: 2009/0259493; hereinafter Venon).
As to claim 1, Venon teaches A computer-implemented method (e.g., see Abstract), comprising:
receiving, by a user device, first health data from an electronic health record (EHR) system, wherein the first health data belongs to a user that is associated with the user device (e.g., see Figs. 1-2, [0084], [0364] wherein a user can access their electronic health record data from their user device);
receiving, via a first input from the user received at the user device, a first user- provided customization request relating to customize a portion of the first health data and generate a first customized portion of the first health data (e.g., see Figs. 5, 7, [0124]-[0155] wherein a user can edit, update, input customization requests of the health data, including contact information, medications, care providers, measurements/test results, insurance information, health history, log data, etc.);
generating, by the user device, a user domain concept (UDC) node of a personalized data graph based at least in part on the first user-provided customization request, wherein the UDC node includes customized information that represents the customized portion of the first health data (e.g., see Figs. 4, 6, 18, [0523], [0547], [05679]-[0575] wherein various relationships/links are formed on the health data based at least in part on the user-customization, wherein the various relationships are interpreted as reading upon the UDC nodes of a personalized data graph);
receiving, by the user device, second health data belonging to the user from a data source different than the EHR system (e.g., see Figs. 1, 18, [0321], [0362]-[0366], [0575], [0567] teaching a plurality of data sources for retrieving patient data, separate from the EHR system);
determining, by the user device, a relationship between the second health data and the first customized portion of the first health data (e.g., see Figs. 6, 18, 26, [0121], [0123], [0133]-[0141] wherein the health data may be automatically associated with the user-customization information)
updating, by the user device, the UDC node to include relationship information that represents the relationship between the first customized portion and the second health data (e.g., see Figs. 6, 18, 26, [0121], [0123], [0133]-[0141] wherein the health data is associated with the user-customization information for future reference); and
populating, by the user device at a user interface of the user device a representation of the UDC node (e.g., see Figs. 18, 26, [0587[ wherein a user is presented the health data as a relationship (i.e., UDC node)).
As to claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Venon further teaches wherein the portion of the first health data comprises a plurality of health data samples, and wherein the UDC node comprises individual connections with each of the plurality of health data samples (e.g., see Figs. 18, 24, 29, [0585], [0590], [0591] wherein the health data can include various health measurements).
As to claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Venon further teaches after receiving the first health data, indexing the first health data to assign reference coding to individual portions of the first health data, and wherein updating the UDC node to include the relationship information comprises updating the UDC node to include the reference coding assigned to the portion of the first health data (e.g., see [0343], [0367], [0556], [0557] wherein the health data can be further categorized/labeled/typed).
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Venon further teaches wherein the customization request comprises at least one of a request to favorite the portion of the first health data, a request to give the portion of the first health data a nickname, a request to add the portion of the first health data to a list, a request to combine the first health data with other health data, or a request to connect the UDC node with one or more other UDC nodes of the personalized data graph (e.g., see [0124]-[0155] wherein a user can edit, update, input customization requests of the health data).
As to claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Chaudhri further teaches establishing a plurality of connections between a plurality of other UDC nodes of the personalized data graph and the UDC node (e.g., see Fig. 18 wherein a plurality of connections are established);
removing a connection of the plurality of connections between at least one of the other UDC nodes and the UDC node (e.g., see [0124]-[0155] wherein a user can edit, update, delete elements); and
responsive to removing the connection, causing the UDC node to sync with the plurality of other UDC nodes (e.g., see [0497] wherein the data is synchronized in real-time).
As to claim 8, 11-13, the claims are directed to the non-transitory computer readable medium implementing the method of claims 1, 4-6 and are similarly rejected.
As to claims 15, 17-19, the claims are directed to the device implanting the method of claims 1, 3-4 and 6 and are similarly rejected.
As to claim 21, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Venon further teaches generating, by the user device, a searching predicate associated with the relationship between the UDC node and the portion of the health data (e.g., see [0171], [0557], [0571] wherein the user can generate a search of the health data);
searching, by the user device, for other UDC nodes related to at least one of the UDC node or the portion of the health data based at least in part on the searching predicate (e.g., see [0171], [0557], [0571] wherein the user can generate a search of the health data); and
updating the other UDC nodes to include the portion of the health data (e.g., see [0171], [0557], [0571] wherein the user can generate a search of the health data and the information can be updated to the patient’s record).
As to claim 22, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Venon further teaches storing, by the user device at a first database of the user device, a collection of health-related information directed to one or more medical concepts (e.g., see Fig. 14, [0015], [0016], [0278], [0590] wherein a collection of health-related information directed to one or more medical concepts is stored on the user’s mobile device); and storing, by the user device at a second database of the user device, the health data and the UDC node for a first user profile associated with the user (e.g., see Fig. 18, [0121], [0122] wherein profile data associated with different users are stored to the mobile device repository), wherein: the first user profile is one of a plurality of user profiles stored in the first database (e.g., see Figs. 3, 18, [0573]-[0576] wherein there may be multiple user profiles associated with different users); and
each user profile of the plurality of user profiles is associated with a different user associated with the user device (e.g., see Figs. 3, 18, [0573]-[0576] wherein there may be multiple user profiles associated with different users)
As to claim 25, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Venon further teaches wherein receiving the second health data includes receiving the second health date from a sensor of the user device (e.g., see [0109] wherein the health data can be input via a touch screen or voice command (i.e., sensor of the user device)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 7, 14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venon et al. (USPPN: 2009/0259493; hereinafter Venon), as applied above, and in further view of Chaudhri et al. (USPPN: 2012/0060216; hereinafter Chaudhri).
As to claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Venon fails to teach generating a concept node of a personalized data graph by at least determining a mapping between a medical concept identified from the first health data and a reference node of a reference ontology; and receiving a different customization request relating to customizing generate a customized aspect of the concept node by customizing an aspect of the concept node; generating a different UDC node of the personalized data graph based at least in part on the different customization request, the different UDC node comprising different customized information that represents the customized aspect of the concept node; and
updating, based at least in part on generating the different UDC node, the concept node to include relationship information that represents a relationship between the concept node and the different UDC node
However, in the same field of endeavor medical information, Chaudhri further teaches generating a concept node of a personalized data graph by at least determining a mapping between a medical concept identified from the health data and a reference node of a reference ontology (e.g., see [0042], [0060], [0069] wherein mapped data is based on a relevancy matrix having a plurality of granular relationship tables, including various medical concepts identified from health data and knowledge of various medical terms/concepts); and
receiving a different customization request relating to customizing generate a customized aspect of the concept node by customizing an aspect of the concept node (e.g., see [0086] wherein the medical concepts are dynamically changed according to user input or as the system gains medical knowledge);
generating a different UDC node of the personalized data graph based at least in part on the different customization request, the different UDC node comprising different customized information that represents the customized aspect of the concept node (e.g., see [0086], [0098], [0145] wherein the mapped data is based on different relevancy tables, including the dynamically changed medical knowledge); and
updating, based at least in part on generating the different UDC node, the concept node to include relationship information that represents a relationship between the concept node and the different UDC node (e.g., see [0070]-[0073] wherein the mapped data is based on user input, relevancy matrix including dynamically changed medical knowledge, past user behavior, user preferences, user history, etc.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Venon in view of Chaudhri before the effective filing date of the invention with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification in order to provide access to specific relevant data, including medical sources (e.g., see Abstract of Chaudhri).
As to claim 14, the claim is directed to the non-transitory computer readable medium implementing the method of claim 7 and is similarly rejected.
As to claim 20, the claim is directed to the device implanting the method of claim 7 and is similarly rejected.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venon, as applied above, and in further view of Burger et al. (USPPN: 2019/0333614; hereinafter Burger).
As to claim 23, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Venon teaches receiving, by the user device, data from a second user device (e.g., see Fig. 16, [0497], [0524] wherein data can be shared between devices); incorporating, by the user device, the data into the health data, wherein the portion of the health data of the relationship of the relationship information of the UDC node includes the data (e.g., see Fig. 16, [0525]-[0526] wherein the data, including health data, is synchronized between all devices); storing, by the user device at a first database of the user device, the health data and the UDC node (e.g., see Fig. 16, [0015], [0016], [0525]-[0526] wherein health data is stored locally to each device); and transmitting, by the user device to the second user device, the UDC node for presentation (e.g., see Figs. 19-28, [0013], [0017], [0525]-[0536] wherein each mobile device can display the relevant data at the user interface of the device).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Chaudhri in view of Venon with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification to provide an easy and convenient way people can maintain their personal health information (e.g., see [0008]-[0011] of Venon).
While Chaudhri and Venon teach receiving patient data from a plurality of sources, wherein Venon explicitly teaches receiving the data from a second device, Chaudhri-Venon fail to teach the data being sensor data.
However, in the same field of endeavor of health management, Burger teaches receiving sensor data (e.g., see Fig. 1, [0057] wherein each device can collect patient data via various medical monitoring devices including sensor data).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Chaudhri-Venon in view of Burger with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification in order to capture not only perceived symptoms, but monitored health data, thereby improving the patient’s healthcare management (e.g., see [0057] of Burger).
As to claim 24, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Venon teaches storing, by the user device at a second database of the user device, a collection of health-related information directed to one or more medical concepts (e.g., see Fig. 14, [0015], [0016], [0278], [0590] wherein a collection of health-related information directed to one or more medical concepts is stored on the user’s mobile device), wherein updating the UDC node includes updating the UDC node to include at least a portion of the health-related information (e.g., see [0439], [0446], [0463] wherein the patient data is updated with health-related information), wherein transmitting the UDC node includes transmitting the UDC node without the collection of health-related information (e.g., see Figs. 19-28, [0525]-[0536] teaching mobile-to-mobile exchange/sharing of the health-related information).
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Further, a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
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 STELLA HIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-5891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9-5PM.
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, Peter Choi can be reached on (469) 295-9171. 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.
/STELLA HIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681